What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5126388 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 5126388?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry And Ensuite Door: $1,013.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings Dishwasher And P…: $1,161.27 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in livin…: $611.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5126388?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5126388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12043322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5126388 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 5126388?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry And Ensuite Door: $1,013.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings Dishwasher And P…: $1,161.27 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in livin…: $611.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5126388?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5126388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12043322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5126388 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5126388 — net $4,134.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and lawns	$460.00	Cleaning and lawns
Replace furnishings: carpet in living area, hallway, second bedroom	$611.00	Replace furnishings: carpet in living area, hallway, second bedroom
Replace furnishings dishwasher and plumbing	$1,161.27	Replace furnishings dishwasher and plumbing
Repairs: Painting walls and doors	$862.50	Repairs: Painting walls and doors
Repairs: Laundry and ensuite door	$1,013.00	Repairs: Laundry and ensuite door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,134.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,134.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Adele Reilly must pay [The landlord/s] $4,134.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 16 September 2020 and ended on 12 November 2024. The Landlord submitted the house was built in the 1970’s and the carpet was replaced last in mid-2000.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claimed $460.00 to clean the property and lawns. They claimed there was mould on window frames and sills, dirty floors in the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry, unclean blinds and skirting boards, and grime on the rangehood, bathroom vanity, shower, and shower glass. Furthermore, the lawns had not been mowed, there were weeds along the driveway, and the grass area was damaged where a trailer and paddling pool had been kept. A final inspection report and cleaning invoice were provided to support these claims. In response, the Tenant stated she had cleaned the property and mowed the lawns before vacating. She also suggested that dust accumulation on the windowsills occurred after she left, as the windows had been left ajar, and noted that some time had passed between her move-out date and the inspection. However, the final inspection took place on 13 November 2024, only one day after the Tenant vacated on 12 November 2024.
In considering the evidence provided, including the inspection report and cleaning invoice, I find it is more likely than not that the Tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Therefore, the Landlord’s claim for cleaning and related costs is proven, and the amounts sought are ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: stain damage on the carpet in the lounge, hallway and bedroom, dishwasher damage, wall damage and door damage. Carpets
The Landlord reported that the carpets in the lounge, hallway, and second bedroom were stained and claimed $1650.00 for the insurance excess to repair the carpets. The carpets were last replaced in the mid-2000s. The Tenant kept a dog at the property without the Landlord’s consent. Although the Landlord attempted to clean the stains, they could not be removed. The Landlord speculated that the bedroom carpet stains may have been caused by water leaking from ceiling-mounted plants. An insurance policy and a carpet replacement invoice were submitted. While the photographs confirmed the presence of stains, it was difficult to determine their extent or justify replacing the entire carpet based solely on the images.
The Tenant stated that she did not know how the stains occurred. She acknowledged the carpet was old, used a Rug Doctor to clean it, and had kept the stained areas covered during the tenancy. She also suggested a possible silverfish infestation, although no evidence was provided. The Tenant did not dispute having a dog at the property.
In considering the evidence, specifically the photographs of the stains in the final inspection and the ingoing report showing the carpet were in reasonable condition, I find the Tenant has damaged the carpet beyond wear and tear. I note that carpet generally has a lifespan of 8 to 25 years. Considering the carpet was at the end of its lifespan during the tenancy, it would be unfair to award a whole new carpet replacement. I note however the carpet was in reasonable condition so in these circumstances, I find it appropriate to award a portion of the replacement cost being 15% which equates to $611.85.
The amounts ordered are proved. Dishwasher
The Landlord claimed the dishwasher had been removed at the end of the tenancy. They sought reimbursement for the cost of a new dishwasher and installation, equating to $1167.27. They provided a dishwasher invoice from Harvey Norman. Additionally, the plumbing pipe inside the cupboard was reportedly removed, which required a plumber to reinstall, and an invoice was provided for the costs to repair.
The Tenant disputed the charge, stating that the dishwasher was left in the carport as it was not working properly. She claimed it was approximately 15 years old.
In considering the evidence, regardless of the dishwasher’s condition, the Tenant had a duty to report the dishwasher damage or return the dishwasher to its original place in the kitchen. I find it more likely that the dishwasher was damaged and was removed for that reason. I accept the costs for a new dishwasher and plumbing installation. For these reasons, I find it appropriate for the Tenant to wear the costs of replacement and installation.
The amount ordered is proved. Painting and door and wall damage
The Landlord sought compensation for wall and door painting and replacing of doors. The Landlord claimed painting costs of $862.50, replacement of the laundry door of $483.00 and replacement of the ensuite door $550.00. The walls had holes, chips, nails, screws, and hooks. The front door was painted bright blue by the Tenant during the tenancy. The back door sill damaged by a leaking fridge placed too close required repair. The laundry cupboard door required repair due to a latch and padlock installed to be used as a gun safe. The door was made of polished timber and had to be replaced rather than repaired. The ensuite door required replacing which had a hole in it that occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord provided ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and an invoice for the repairs.
The Tenant submitted that the kitchen door was already worn from age, the holes in the laundry door were for mop storage, and the padlock was used for child safety. She claimed the hole in the ensuite door existed before the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, notably the inspection photos and repair invoices, I find the damage exceeded normal wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. The Tenant should have repaired the damage when she vacated the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the landlord.
As the tenant has not been successful name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5126388 — net $4,134.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and lawns	$460.00	Cleaning and lawns
Replace furnishings: carpet in living area, hallway, second bedroom	$611.00	Replace furnishings: carpet in living area, hallway, second bedroom
Replace furnishings dishwasher and plumbing	$1,161.27	Replace furnishings dishwasher and plumbing
Repairs: Painting walls and doors	$862.50	Repairs: Painting walls and doors
Repairs: Laundry and ensuite door	$1,013.00	Repairs: Laundry and ensuite door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,134.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,134.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Adele Reilly must pay [The landlord/s] $4,134.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 16 September 2020 and ended on 12 November 2024. The Landlord submitted the house was built in the 1970’s and the carpet was replaced last in mid-2000.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claimed $460.00 to clean the property and lawns. They claimed there was mould on window frames and sills, dirty floors in the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry, unclean blinds and skirting boards, and grime on the rangehood, bathroom vanity, shower, and shower glass. Furthermore, the lawns had not been mowed, there were weeds along the driveway, and the grass area was damaged where a trailer and paddling pool had been kept. A final inspection report and cleaning invoice were provided to support these claims. In response, the Tenant stated she had cleaned the property and mowed the lawns before vacating. She also suggested that dust accumulation on the windowsills occurred after she left, as the windows had been left ajar, and noted that some time had passed between her move-out date and the inspection. However, the final inspection took place on 13 November 2024, only one day after the Tenant vacated on 12 November 2024.
In considering the evidence provided, including the inspection report and cleaning invoice, I find it is more likely than not that the Tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Therefore, the Landlord’s claim for cleaning and related costs is proven, and the amounts sought are ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: stain damage on the carpet in the lounge, hallway and bedroom, dishwasher damage, wall damage and door damage. Carpets
The Landlord reported that the carpets in the lounge, hallway, and second bedroom were stained and claimed $1650.00 for the insurance excess to repair the carpets. The carpets were last replaced in the mid-2000s. The Tenant kept a dog at the property without the Landlord’s consent. Although the Landlord attempted to clean the stains, they could not be removed. The Landlord speculated that the bedroom carpet stains may have been caused by water leaking from ceiling-mounted plants. An insurance policy and a carpet replacement invoice were submitted. While the photographs confirmed the presence of stains, it was difficult to determine their extent or justify replacing the entire carpet based solely on the images.
The Tenant stated that she did not know how the stains occurred. She acknowledged the carpet was old, used a Rug Doctor to clean it, and had kept the stained areas covered during the tenancy. She also suggested a possible silverfish infestation, although no evidence was provided. The Tenant did not dispute having a dog at the property.
In considering the evidence, specifically the photographs of the stains in the final inspection and the ingoing report showing the carpet were in reasonable condition, I find the Tenant has damaged the carpet beyond wear and tear. I note that carpet generally has a lifespan of 8 to 25 years. Considering the carpet was at the end of its lifespan during the tenancy, it would be unfair to award a whole new carpet replacement. I note however the carpet was in reasonable condition so in these circumstances, I find it appropriate to award a portion of the replacement cost being 15% which equates to $611.85.
The amounts ordered are proved. Dishwasher
The Landlord claimed the dishwasher had been removed at the end of the tenancy. They sought reimbursement for the cost of a new dishwasher and installation, equating to $1167.27. They provided a dishwasher invoice from Harvey Norman. Additionally, the plumbing pipe inside the cupboard was reportedly removed, which required a plumber to reinstall, and an invoice was provided for the costs to repair.
The Tenant disputed the charge, stating that the dishwasher was left in the carport as it was not working properly. She claimed it was approximately 15 years old.
In considering the evidence, regardless of the dishwasher’s condition, the Tenant had a duty to report the dishwasher damage or return the dishwasher to its original place in the kitchen. I find it more likely that the dishwasher was damaged and was removed for that reason. I accept the costs for a new dishwasher and plumbing installation. For these reasons, I find it appropriate for the Tenant to wear the costs of replacement and installation.
The amount ordered is proved. Painting and door and wall damage
The Landlord sought compensation for wall and door painting and replacing of doors. The Landlord claimed painting costs of $862.50, replacement of the laundry door of $483.00 and replacement of the ensuite door $550.00. The walls had holes, chips, nails, screws, and hooks. The front door was painted bright blue by the Tenant during the tenancy. The back door sill damaged by a leaking fridge placed too close required repair. The laundry cupboard door required repair due to a latch and padlock installed to be used as a gun safe. The door was made of polished timber and had to be replaced rather than repaired. The ensuite door required replacing which had a hole in it that occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord provided ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and an invoice for the repairs.
The Tenant submitted that the kitchen door was already worn from age, the holes in the laundry door were for mop storage, and the padlock was used for child safety. She claimed the hole in the ensuite door existed before the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, notably the inspection photos and repair invoices, I find the damage exceeded normal wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. The Tenant should have repaired the damage when she vacated the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the landlord.
As the tenant has not been successful name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5126388 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5126388 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions