What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118675 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 5118675?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Sink: $573.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118675?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118675?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11880486-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118675 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 5118675?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Sink: $573.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118675?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118675?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11880486-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10B Colum Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118675 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

10B Colum Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118675 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118675 — net $773.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: kitchen sink	$573.85	Repairs: kitchen sink
Carpet and curtain cleaning	$200.00	Carpet and curtain cleaning
Net award	$773.85
Bond	$5,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$773.85

Claims and awards for application 5118675 — net $773.85 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: kitchen sink

Amount: $573.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: kitchen sink

Carpet and curtain cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet and curtain cleaning

Net award

Landlord $773.85

Bond

Landlord $5,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $773.85

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — __________________________________________________________________________________ 511867511 FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $773.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $773.85 [The tenant/s]: $4,226.15

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 May 2025.
The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The Law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not return one of two letterbox keys. The landlord seeks compensation for the following items: a. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and oil stain removal: $299.00 b. Curtain cleaning: $207.00 c. Rodent treatment: $339.25 d. Letterbox key replacement: $11.50
I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning, carpet cleaning, oil stain removal and curtain cleaning Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant was the first person to live in them.
The landlord claims that the cleanliness of the premises at the end of the tenancy was unacceptable. In particular, the landlord gave evidence that the rangehood and oven were dirty. The landlord also gave evidence that the carpet in the garage was stained and smelt of cat urine. Further, the landlord claims there were dirt marks on the walls in the garage.
The landlord gave further evidence that the curtains were dirty. The landlord claims the netting had mould on it and the curtains had slime on them. The landlord submits that the slime is the type that children often play with and was most likely caused by the tenant’s youngest child.
The landlord gave evidence that the driveway had an oil stain on it.
The landlord submitted a copy of the exit inspection, which includes photographs taken throughout the house. The landlord also submitted close up photographs of the rangehood, oven, garage carpet, garage walls, curtains and driveway.
The landlord submitted a quote for cleaning, which includes carpet cleaning and removal of the oil stain, for $299.00.
The landlord also submitted a quote for curtain cleaning for $207.00. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord gave evidence that they do not have invoices and are unsure whether the owner has carried out any of the work in accordance with the quotes. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant gave evidence that they hired a professional cleaner to clean the property at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $680.00. The tenant gave evidence that this included carpet cleaning.
The tenant did not submit an invoice from the cleaner, stating that they never received one and the cleaner has now moved to China. The tenant submitted a copy of a bank transfer for $680.00, which they say was paid to the cleaner.
The tenant submitted a photograph taken towards the end of the tenancy. It shows a van parked at the tenancy address from A1 Cleaning. The tenant claims this proves they had the premises professionally cleaned.
The tenant accepts that they kept a cat as a pet with the permission of the landlord. The tenant gave evidence that the cat lived exclusively outside the house and only came inside to eat.
The tenant denies that the carpet in the garage had stains on it or smelt like urine. The tenant submitted their own photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy, which are in black in white.
The tenant accepts that the oil stain in the driveway occurred during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that they tried to remove it but could not.
The tenant claims that they have no knowledge of slime on the curtains or how it would have gotten there. The tenant claims it might have been caused by the next set of tenants. Analysis
The photographs contained in the exit inspection show the property was generally left in a clean and tidy condition. There are no furniture or personal belongings left behind. The floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped. The bench surfaces appear to have been cleaned, as well as the bathroom.
The photograph of the rangehood submitted by the landlord shows a small amount of residue, but it does not appear unreasonably dirty. The same can be said for the oven and small patch of wall in the garage where there are some speckles of dirt.
The garage carpet and curtains are a different story. The photograph of the garage carpet submitted by the landlord shows obvious stains. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet smelt like cat urine. I find it very unlikely that the tenant’s cat lived exclusively outside the premises and only returned inside to eat. The state of the carpet is not clear in the photograph of the garage submitted by the tenant, which is taken from a distance and is black and white. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carpet in the garage was stained and smelt like cat urine as claimed by the landlord.
The photographs of the curtains submitted by the landlord also show some green slime on them and the curtains are stuck together in parts. These photographs were taken during the exit inspection, which occurred on 19 December 2024, one day after the tenancy ended. In these circumstances, it is not possible that the slime occurred during the next tenancy, which had not begun at that stage. The tenant has a 9 year old child. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it more likely than not that the slime was transferred to the curtains when the tenant’s 9 year old child was playing with it.
The oil stain in the driveway is moderate in size. It is usually the case that cars are parked on a driveway. The fact that they might sometimes leak oil or other fluid is common. I consider this to be fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for. 7
I also consider the small amount of mould on the back of the netting curtain to be fair wear and tear. It is minimal in size. The fact that the backs of curtains or netting accumulate mould from condensation on the windows, particularly in wintertime, is common and generally to be expected.
It follows that I find the tenant left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy only on the basis that the carpet in the garage was stained and smelt like cat urine, and slime was present on parts of the curtains.
The landlord has not proven that they have incurred a cost for professional cleaning or carpet cleaning, as they only submitted quotes and not invoices. The property manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord was unsure whether any such work had actually occurred. This tenancy ended on 19 December 2024 and it is now 21 May 2025, some 5 months later.
In these circumstances, it is fair and reasonable that I award an amount that fairly reflects the extent of the breach by the tenant and likely cost to clean the carpet in the garage and curtains. I consider $200.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet and curtain cleaning is granted for $200.00. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2). Rodent treatment Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims there was a rat in the garage when they completed the final inspection. The landlord submitted a photograph of the rat. The landlord claims that the state of the property during and at the end of the tenancy was such that it most likely attracted rodents. The landlord gave evidence that only one rat was present.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was issued with a 14-day notice during the tenancy because of the condition of the property. The tenant apparently disputed this notice, advising the landlord that they were not required to keep the property in a pristine condition. The landlord submitted a photograph of the garage taken during the tenancy.
The landlord submitted a quote for pest control for $339.25. The landlord is unsure whether the premises have been fumigated. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence disputing that there was a rodent problem or that they were the cause of it. The tenant claims that they left a window and possibly even the garage door slightly open at the end of the tenancy for ventilation as they were worried about the property smelling. The tenant claims a rat could have entered the garage via these means. Analysis
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the state of the property during or at the end of the tenancy most likely attracted rodents. Overall, the property appears to have been left in a clean and tidy state. There are no food scraps or rubbish left behind. The landlord submitted a photograph of the garage taken during the tenancy, which shows it was mostly used for storage by the tenant. Whilst the tenant’s items are not stored in an organised or tidy fashion, the garage is by no means dirty and there is no food or rubbish present.
The landlord gave evidence that there was one rodent in the garage when they completed the exit inspection. There was no evidence of any other rodents present or of there being a persistent problem regarding rodents during the tenancy.
The landlord has failed to establish a causal nexus between the tenant’s conduct and the presence of one rat. The landlord has also not proven that they have actually had the premises treated for pests. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation for $339.25 for pest control is dismissed. Mailbox key Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was provided with two keys for the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy and only one key was returned. The landlord claims the tenant broke the mailbox keys numerous times during the tenancy and asked the property manager to have a second key cut at the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not pay for this and submitted an invoice for $11.50.
The exit inspection report notes that two mailbox keys were returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that they forgot to add the comment “not returned by the tenant” to the exit inspection report. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence accepting that the mailbox key broke a number of times during the tenancy. The tenant claims it was flimsy.
The tenant gave evidence that they requested a second key to be cut at the end of the tenancy and paid the landlord for this. The tenant claims two mailbox keys were returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord claims the tenant only returned one mailbox key and the tenant claims they returned two. The only piece of objective evidence is the exit inspection report, which notes that two mailbox keys were returned. In these circumstances, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant only returned one mailbox key.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $11.50 to replace the mailbox key is dismissed.

DAMAGE

The law

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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the kitchen sink, windowsill, and garage walls. I deal with each issue in turn below. Kitchen sink Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the premises had an insinkerator, which was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims that there is a small piece of metal above the insinkerator, which can be removed. The landlord gave evidence this piece prevents the sink from overflowing. The landlord claims that during the tenancy, this piece of metal fell into the insinkerator, causing it to stop working temporarily. The landlord gave evidence that the piece of metal is damaged and needs to be replaced. The landlord has not replaced it yet, but submitted a quote for $573.85.
The landlord gave evidence that the sink and insinkerator are a German brand and of good quality.
The landlord submitted a video of the property manager trying to remove the metal piece in the sink with a craft knife and their nail. It appears difficult to remove. The landlord submits this video proves that the piece could only have been removed as a result of careless or intentional damage by the tenant. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence acknowledging that the metal piece in the sink above the insinkerator fell out during the tenancy and caused the insinkerator to stop working temporarily. The tenant claims a plumber visited the premises to fix the problem.
The tenant gave evidence that they do not know how the piece fell out of the sink into the insinkerator, but suspects it was due to the fact that the kitchen sink and bench vibrate a lot when the insinkerator is turned on. The tenant gave evidence that the quality of the piece of metal and insinkerator is not very good. The tenant claims that any damage to the metal piece is fair wear and tear. Analysis
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the sink and insinkerator were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy.
The video submitted by the landlord clearly shows that the piece in the sink is difficult to remove and I find it unlikely that it would have simply fallen out when the insinkerator was turned on as claimed by the tenant.
This tenancy was only 9 months long. It is unusual that the metal piece should fall out and be damaged within such a short amount of time.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the damage to the metal piece in the kitchen sink to be more than fair wear and tear and most likely the result of careless damage by the tenant.
The landlord has not had the metal piece replaced yet, but I consider it more likely than not that they will.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the metal piece in the sink is granted for $573.85 per the quote. Windowsill and garage wall Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims that the windowsill in the tenant’s daughter’s bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant had the windowsill repainted by a painter however, the landlord claims the quality of the work is not professional. The landlord submitted a close-up photograph of the windowsill. The landlord claims there is a stark difference between the paint on the bottom of the windowsill, which is bumpy, compared to the paint on the side of the windowsill which is smooth.
The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for marks to the wall in the garage. The landlord submitted a photograph of the garage wall, which shows some small marks to it.
The landlord has not had the windowsill or garage repainted and submitted a quote for $575.00 to complete the work. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that their daughter left the bedroom window open accidentally one day whilst it was raining. The tenant accepts that water hit the windowsill, which caused the paint to crack after some time. The tenant gave evidence that they had the windowsill and other parts of the property painted by a professional. The tenant submitted a WeChat message they sent the property manager showing them photographs of the painting job, which the property manager approved of.
The tenant gave evidence that they were not aware of the marks in the garage wall and do not know how they occurred. Analysis
The landlord’s claim that the tenant damaged the windowsill and had an unprofessional repair completed is dismissed. The photograph of the windowsill submitted by the landlord is a close up photograph. The paint job appears professional and it looks good. I cannot see any difference between the bottom windowsill compared to the rest of the window frame. The windowsill looks to be in very good condition.
On the balance of probabilities, I consider the marks to the wall in the garage to be fair wear and tear. The tenancy was 9 months long and the marks are small. The property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and it is inevitable that there will be a slight deterioration of condition as a result of people living in it.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $575.00 for the windowsill and garage wall is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
Both parties have been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I also grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118675 — net $773.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: kitchen sink	$573.85	Repairs: kitchen sink
Carpet and curtain cleaning	$200.00	Carpet and curtain cleaning
Net award	$773.85
Bond	$5,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$773.85

Claims and awards for application 5118675 — net $773.85 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: kitchen sink

Amount: $573.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: kitchen sink

Carpet and curtain cleaning

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet and curtain cleaning

Net award

Landlord $773.85

Bond

Landlord $5,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $773.85

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — __________________________________________________________________________________ 511867511 FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $773.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $773.85 [The tenant/s]: $4,226.15

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 May 2025.
The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The Law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not return one of two letterbox keys. The landlord seeks compensation for the following items: a. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and oil stain removal: $299.00 b. Curtain cleaning: $207.00 c. Rodent treatment: $339.25 d. Letterbox key replacement: $11.50
I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning, carpet cleaning, oil stain removal and curtain cleaning Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant was the first person to live in them.
The landlord claims that the cleanliness of the premises at the end of the tenancy was unacceptable. In particular, the landlord gave evidence that the rangehood and oven were dirty. The landlord also gave evidence that the carpet in the garage was stained and smelt of cat urine. Further, the landlord claims there were dirt marks on the walls in the garage.
The landlord gave further evidence that the curtains were dirty. The landlord claims the netting had mould on it and the curtains had slime on them. The landlord submits that the slime is the type that children often play with and was most likely caused by the tenant’s youngest child.
The landlord gave evidence that the driveway had an oil stain on it.
The landlord submitted a copy of the exit inspection, which includes photographs taken throughout the house. The landlord also submitted close up photographs of the rangehood, oven, garage carpet, garage walls, curtains and driveway.
The landlord submitted a quote for cleaning, which includes carpet cleaning and removal of the oil stain, for $299.00.
The landlord also submitted a quote for curtain cleaning for $207.00. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord gave evidence that they do not have invoices and are unsure whether the owner has carried out any of the work in accordance with the quotes. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant gave evidence that they hired a professional cleaner to clean the property at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $680.00. The tenant gave evidence that this included carpet cleaning.
The tenant did not submit an invoice from the cleaner, stating that they never received one and the cleaner has now moved to China. The tenant submitted a copy of a bank transfer for $680.00, which they say was paid to the cleaner.
The tenant submitted a photograph taken towards the end of the tenancy. It shows a van parked at the tenancy address from A1 Cleaning. The tenant claims this proves they had the premises professionally cleaned.
The tenant accepts that they kept a cat as a pet with the permission of the landlord. The tenant gave evidence that the cat lived exclusively outside the house and only came inside to eat.
The tenant denies that the carpet in the garage had stains on it or smelt like urine. The tenant submitted their own photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy, which are in black in white.
The tenant accepts that the oil stain in the driveway occurred during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that they tried to remove it but could not.
The tenant claims that they have no knowledge of slime on the curtains or how it would have gotten there. The tenant claims it might have been caused by the next set of tenants. Analysis
The photographs contained in the exit inspection show the property was generally left in a clean and tidy condition. There are no furniture or personal belongings left behind. The floors appear to have been vacuumed and mopped. The bench surfaces appear to have been cleaned, as well as the bathroom.
The photograph of the rangehood submitted by the landlord shows a small amount of residue, but it does not appear unreasonably dirty. The same can be said for the oven and small patch of wall in the garage where there are some speckles of dirt.
The garage carpet and curtains are a different story. The photograph of the garage carpet submitted by the landlord shows obvious stains. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet smelt like cat urine. I find it very unlikely that the tenant’s cat lived exclusively outside the premises and only returned inside to eat. The state of the carpet is not clear in the photograph of the garage submitted by the tenant, which is taken from a distance and is black and white. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carpet in the garage was stained and smelt like cat urine as claimed by the landlord.
The photographs of the curtains submitted by the landlord also show some green slime on them and the curtains are stuck together in parts. These photographs were taken during the exit inspection, which occurred on 19 December 2024, one day after the tenancy ended. In these circumstances, it is not possible that the slime occurred during the next tenancy, which had not begun at that stage. The tenant has a 9 year old child. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it more likely than not that the slime was transferred to the curtains when the tenant’s 9 year old child was playing with it.
The oil stain in the driveway is moderate in size. It is usually the case that cars are parked on a driveway. The fact that they might sometimes leak oil or other fluid is common. I consider this to be fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for. 7
I also consider the small amount of mould on the back of the netting curtain to be fair wear and tear. It is minimal in size. The fact that the backs of curtains or netting accumulate mould from condensation on the windows, particularly in wintertime, is common and generally to be expected.
It follows that I find the tenant left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy only on the basis that the carpet in the garage was stained and smelt like cat urine, and slime was present on parts of the curtains.
The landlord has not proven that they have incurred a cost for professional cleaning or carpet cleaning, as they only submitted quotes and not invoices. The property manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord was unsure whether any such work had actually occurred. This tenancy ended on 19 December 2024 and it is now 21 May 2025, some 5 months later.
In these circumstances, it is fair and reasonable that I award an amount that fairly reflects the extent of the breach by the tenant and likely cost to clean the carpet in the garage and curtains. I consider $200.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet and curtain cleaning is granted for $200.00. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2). Rodent treatment Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims there was a rat in the garage when they completed the final inspection. The landlord submitted a photograph of the rat. The landlord claims that the state of the property during and at the end of the tenancy was such that it most likely attracted rodents. The landlord gave evidence that only one rat was present.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was issued with a 14-day notice during the tenancy because of the condition of the property. The tenant apparently disputed this notice, advising the landlord that they were not required to keep the property in a pristine condition. The landlord submitted a photograph of the garage taken during the tenancy.
The landlord submitted a quote for pest control for $339.25. The landlord is unsure whether the premises have been fumigated. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence disputing that there was a rodent problem or that they were the cause of it. The tenant claims that they left a window and possibly even the garage door slightly open at the end of the tenancy for ventilation as they were worried about the property smelling. The tenant claims a rat could have entered the garage via these means. Analysis
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the state of the property during or at the end of the tenancy most likely attracted rodents. Overall, the property appears to have been left in a clean and tidy state. There are no food scraps or rubbish left behind. The landlord submitted a photograph of the garage taken during the tenancy, which shows it was mostly used for storage by the tenant. Whilst the tenant’s items are not stored in an organised or tidy fashion, the garage is by no means dirty and there is no food or rubbish present.
The landlord gave evidence that there was one rodent in the garage when they completed the exit inspection. There was no evidence of any other rodents present or of there being a persistent problem regarding rodents during the tenancy.
The landlord has failed to establish a causal nexus between the tenant’s conduct and the presence of one rat. The landlord has also not proven that they have actually had the premises treated for pests. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation for $339.25 for pest control is dismissed. Mailbox key Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was provided with two keys for the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy and only one key was returned. The landlord claims the tenant broke the mailbox keys numerous times during the tenancy and asked the property manager to have a second key cut at the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not pay for this and submitted an invoice for $11.50.
The exit inspection report notes that two mailbox keys were returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that they forgot to add the comment “not returned by the tenant” to the exit inspection report. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence accepting that the mailbox key broke a number of times during the tenancy. The tenant claims it was flimsy.
The tenant gave evidence that they requested a second key to be cut at the end of the tenancy and paid the landlord for this. The tenant claims two mailbox keys were returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord claims the tenant only returned one mailbox key and the tenant claims they returned two. The only piece of objective evidence is the exit inspection report, which notes that two mailbox keys were returned. In these circumstances, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant only returned one mailbox key.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $11.50 to replace the mailbox key is dismissed.

DAMAGE

The law

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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the kitchen sink, windowsill, and garage walls. I deal with each issue in turn below. Kitchen sink Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the premises had an insinkerator, which was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims that there is a small piece of metal above the insinkerator, which can be removed. The landlord gave evidence this piece prevents the sink from overflowing. The landlord claims that during the tenancy, this piece of metal fell into the insinkerator, causing it to stop working temporarily. The landlord gave evidence that the piece of metal is damaged and needs to be replaced. The landlord has not replaced it yet, but submitted a quote for $573.85.
The landlord gave evidence that the sink and insinkerator are a German brand and of good quality.
The landlord submitted a video of the property manager trying to remove the metal piece in the sink with a craft knife and their nail. It appears difficult to remove. The landlord submits this video proves that the piece could only have been removed as a result of careless or intentional damage by the tenant. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence acknowledging that the metal piece in the sink above the insinkerator fell out during the tenancy and caused the insinkerator to stop working temporarily. The tenant claims a plumber visited the premises to fix the problem.
The tenant gave evidence that they do not know how the piece fell out of the sink into the insinkerator, but suspects it was due to the fact that the kitchen sink and bench vibrate a lot when the insinkerator is turned on. The tenant gave evidence that the quality of the piece of metal and insinkerator is not very good. The tenant claims that any damage to the metal piece is fair wear and tear. Analysis
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the sink and insinkerator were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy.
The video submitted by the landlord clearly shows that the piece in the sink is difficult to remove and I find it unlikely that it would have simply fallen out when the insinkerator was turned on as claimed by the tenant.
This tenancy was only 9 months long. It is unusual that the metal piece should fall out and be damaged within such a short amount of time.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the damage to the metal piece in the kitchen sink to be more than fair wear and tear and most likely the result of careless damage by the tenant.
The landlord has not had the metal piece replaced yet, but I consider it more likely than not that they will.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the metal piece in the sink is granted for $573.85 per the quote. Windowsill and garage wall Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims that the windowsill in the tenant’s daughter’s bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant had the windowsill repainted by a painter however, the landlord claims the quality of the work is not professional. The landlord submitted a close-up photograph of the windowsill. The landlord claims there is a stark difference between the paint on the bottom of the windowsill, which is bumpy, compared to the paint on the side of the windowsill which is smooth.
The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for marks to the wall in the garage. The landlord submitted a photograph of the garage wall, which shows some small marks to it.
The landlord has not had the windowsill or garage repainted and submitted a quote for $575.00 to complete the work. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that their daughter left the bedroom window open accidentally one day whilst it was raining. The tenant accepts that water hit the windowsill, which caused the paint to crack after some time. The tenant gave evidence that they had the windowsill and other parts of the property painted by a professional. The tenant submitted a WeChat message they sent the property manager showing them photographs of the painting job, which the property manager approved of.
The tenant gave evidence that they were not aware of the marks in the garage wall and do not know how they occurred. Analysis
The landlord’s claim that the tenant damaged the windowsill and had an unprofessional repair completed is dismissed. The photograph of the windowsill submitted by the landlord is a close up photograph. The paint job appears professional and it looks good. I cannot see any difference between the bottom windowsill compared to the rest of the window frame. The windowsill looks to be in very good condition.
On the balance of probabilities, I consider the marks to the wall in the garage to be fair wear and tear. The tenancy was 9 months long and the marks are small. The property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and it is inevitable that there will be a slight deterioration of condition as a result of people living in it.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $575.00 for the windowsill and garage wall is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
Both parties have been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I also grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118675 — Property damage at 10B Colum Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118675 — Property damage at 10B Colum Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions