What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5128488 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names and

How much money was awarded in case 5128488?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Stain On Exterior: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5128488?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5128488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11862149-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5128488 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names and

How much money was awarded in case 5128488?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Stain On Exterior: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5128488?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5128488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11862149-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5128488 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5128488 — 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 5128488 — net $952.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and garden waste	$50.00	Rubbish removal: and garden waste
Repainting stain on exterior	$100.00	Repainting stain on exterior
Damage to lawn	$400.00	Damage to lawn
Damage to carpet	$100.00	Damage to carpet
Damage to vinyl	$50.00	Damage to vinyl
Replacement of curtains	$150.00	Replacement of curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$952.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$952.00

Claims and awards for application 5128488 — net $952.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal: and garden waste

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: and garden waste

Repainting stain on exterior

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repainting stain on exterior

Damage to lawn

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Damage to lawn

Damage to carpet

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Damage to carpet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $952.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $952.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,448.00
The landlord’s claim for compensation for doors and painting is dismissed.

Reasons

[Landlord 1] was joined as an applicant (landlord) at the hearing. She is named as a landlord on the tenancy agreement but had not been named as an applicant/landlord on the application.
[The landlord/s] (landlord) attended the hearing which was held as an in-person hearing. [The tenant/s] (tenants) also attended.
The tenancy commenced on 29 January 2021 for a fixed term of two years. The tenancy was renewed for a further fixed term tenancy for one year and then became periodic. The tenancy ended on 6 April 2024 as a result of the tenants giving 28 days’ notice.
The house is a 5 bedroomed house and there were 5 occupants living in the house throughout the tenancy. Not all occupants were tenants. There were changes to the tenants, however [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were tenants throughout the tenancy. [Tenant 3] became a tenant on 22 January 2022 .
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
Interior cleaning: The landlord claims $500, being $120 paid to a cleaner and $380 paid at $25/hr for 15.2 hours for cleaning carried out by their student children for cleaning the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I find the photographs/video provided by both parties establish that generally the tenants left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, but that some minor cleaning was needed to meet the standard required under the RTA. Tenants are not expected to leave the premises in a pristine condition, and it is expected that landlords are likely to do more cleaning before premises are re-let. I find $75.00 is reasonable compensation for the cleaning required based on the evidence presented.
This amount does not include any award for cleaning the interior of windows, windowsills or doorframes as the photographs presented do not establish these areas were not left reasonably clean. In making this award I note that the cleaner’s invoice is dated more than 2 months after the tenancy ended and that there is no written record supporting the cleaning done by the landlord’s children.
Removal of rubbish and garden waste: The landlord claims $111.50 for dump costs and $200.00 for 8 hours work at $25/hr).
The evidence establishes that the tenants left food in the food waste bin, the rubbish bin was full and needed emptying, a minimal amount of recycling was in the recycling bin and that the recycling and the bottle bins needed cleaning. The landlord’s photographs show there were 2 items left outside that should have been put into the rubbish.
The landlord claims for removal of lawn clippings and other garden waste. The landlord’s photographs show a small pile of twigs, but there are no photographs or video, taken by either the landlord or the tenant, of lawn clippings.
I am unable to determine what grass, if any, were left therefore no award is made for this part of the claim.
The invoice for dumping general rubbish ($83.01) is dated 18 April, being 12 days after the tenancy ended. I understand that invoice includes the dumping of the food waste and general household rubbish. However this invoice represents far more than a bag of rubbish and I am not convinced the household rubbish as taken to the refuse station that long after the tenancy ended.
I find based on the evidence that an award of $50.00 is reasonable compensation for the rubbish at the property and the cleaning of the bins.

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 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.
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 intentionally or carelessly during the tenancy:
Carpet: The landlord claims the carpet was stained and marked in the living/dining room and all 5 bedrooms during the tenancy. The landlord made a claim under their insurance policy which resulted in their insurer paying a settlement sum of $5,375.01 for new carpet to be installed in these rooms. The insurer considered each room as a separate event. The landlord claims their insurance excess for each room ($3,300.00 being 6 excesses at $550.00).
The pre-tenancy inspection report records floor coverings in all of the rooms claimed for as being of “average condition”. It also records the dining area had “marks/stains” and bedroom 1 had “marks”.
The tenants admit to having a fridge on the carpet in the dining area which I find caused rust stains. The tenants deny they caused any other marks or stains on the carpet other than what they consider to be fair wear and tear to the carpet, including the iron mark in the living/dining area.
There is significant wear to the carpet in two areas: the inside of the ranch slider and by the wall where the dining table was located. The tenants say these areas were worn when they moved in; the landlord says otherwise and that the areas became worn during the tenancy, particularly during the last 6 months of the tenancy.
No photographs of the condition of the carpet were taken by either party at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not present photographs of the carpet at the end of the tenancy for all of the bedrooms claimed, however the tenants did.
The landlord purchased the house 8 years before the tenancy ended and considered the carpet was 2-3 years old at the time of purchase. I find the carpet most likely was 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. I find 10 years to be the average expected life span of solution nylon carpet in tenancy premises.
I find the iron burn mark, rust mark and the wear around the kitchen table were caused by the tenants or others at the tenancy with their permission during the tenancy but that the landlord has not proven that the tenants have any liability for any other damage to the carpet.
The carpet’s reasonable economic life span had expired at the end of the tenancy. However I find the damage caused by the tenants accelerated the need for the carpet to be replaced and on that basis I find the tenants are liable to pay $100.00 towards the replacement of the carpet.
In making this award I have considered that the landlords paid $5,882.61 to replace the carpet in the living/dining room and the 5 bedrooms. This means the landlord had a shortfall of $507.60 after receiving their insurance settlement. In my view the landlord’s claim for 6 excesses grossly overstates their loss as it is based on a cost they did not pay 1 . The award made recognises the tenants have liability to contribute to the landlord’s loss, but that the landlord did not establish that a larger contribution would be fair or reasonable.
Vinyl: The landlord claims the insurance excess of $550.00 to replace lino in the laundry as there was a tear in the lino at the end of the tenancy. I find the damage was likely to be caused carelessly when the tenants moved out. The cost paid to replace the lino was $1,498.50, and the settlement from the landlord’s insurer was for $723.50. The lino was around 10 years old at the end of the tenancy.
I find ten years to be the average expected life span of vinyl flooring in tenancy premises. Therefore I find the reasonable economic life span of the vinyl had expired. However, I find the damage caused by the tenants accelerated the need for the vinyl to be replaced and on that basis I find the tenants are liable to pay $50.00 towards the replacement of the carpet.
Painting: The landlord claims there was damage to the walls throughout the house caused by the tenants attaching things to the walls with pins, nails, blue tack and command strips, as well as several dents in walls and that the damage is more than wear and tear. The landlord claims $3,300.00, being excesses of $550 for each of the 5 bedrooms and the living/dining room, to repair and paint the walls in these rooms.
The ingoing inspection report records the comment “Marks” in the column for walls/doors in all 5 bedrooms. The report also records the walls in bedroom 4 having 8 patched holes. There is no comment recorded on the condition of the walls in the living/dining room. The landlord did not take any photos at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided three photos of dents in walls and three photos of holes caused by pins/nails taken at the end of the tenancy. The rooms the photos are taken in are not identified and the landlord was not sure of their location. The 1 The landlord received a settlement payment of $5,375.01 based on a quote to replace the carpet less 6 excesses. The landlord’s then received a 30% discount on the quote settlement was based on when the carpet was installed. landlord also provided photos showing items attached to walls in bedrooms 3, 4 and 5 and on a wall in the living/dining room.
The tenants provided photos and a video showing the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ evidence is that when the tenancy started there were a) pre-existing pinholes and other marks on the walls in the bedrooms they occupied 2 and b) command hooks were on the walls, or there was evidence of past use of command strips, in several bedrooms.
I find that it is likely that some further damage has occurred to the walls during the tenancy, particularly as items have been attached to walls as shown in the photos for bedrooms 4 and 5 and the living room. In saying that bedroom 4 had 8 patched holes at the start of the tenancy. I am persuaded that blue tack was used in bedroom 3 and do not find that it caused any damage to walls in that room. The landlord has not provided photos specifying damage to walls in bedrooms 1 and 2.
However I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that the need for the walls to be repaired and repainted is solely attributable to damage caused during this tenancy. The landlord’s evidence of the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy is not sufficient to prove their claim. I am more persuaded that the walls and paint were in need of maintenance work regardless of damage caused during this tenancy.
The walls have not been painted since the landlord purchased the premises 8 years ago and there is no reliable evidence on when the walls were previously painted. I am satisfied that generally walls in living rooms in tenanted premises have an expected life span of around 8 – 12 years and that bedrooms have an expected life span of around 10-14 years.
On that basis I apply an average life span of 10 years to the living room and 12 years to the bedrooms. I find the painting of the walls is likely to have occurred around 10 years ago when the carpet was replaced. Therefore I find the expected life span of the living/dining room has expired and the bedrooms are about 85% through their expected life span. This means 15% of the expected life span of the paint in the bedrooms is remaining.
The insurance assessor has calculated that each of bedrooms 1-4 equates to 15% of the total work to paint the 5 bedrooms and the living/dining room, and that bedroom 5 represents 10% of the total painting work 3 . The landlord and their children painted the premises. The landlord claims $6,093.62 for the work/materials. On that basis, using the percentages calculated by the assessor, 2 (bedrooms 4, 5 and 6) 3 the Loss Adjusters letter to the landlord dated 27 May 2024 sets out the wall damage percentage per room as being 30% for the living/dining room; 15% each for bedrooms 1-4 and 10% for bedroom 5. I attribute a cost of $914.05 to each of bedrooms 1-4 4 and $609.36 to bedroom 5 5 .
In considering betterment and depreciation, the remaining expected life span of 15% for all of the bedrooms equates to $137.11 per room for bedrooms 1-4 6 and $91.40 for bedroom 5. 7 The total value of the remaining expected life span therefore for all the bedrooms amounts to $639.84.
The landlord’s insurer has settled with the landlord based on a on a quote from a painting contractor for $8,797.50. The insurer has not depreciated any costs and has paid the landlord $5,497.52 after deducting 6 insurance excesses of $550.00 for each room.
I find the landlord has again over represented their loss. Regardless, from the evidence presented I am not convinced that any of the damage caused during the tenancy has accelerated the need to repair and paint the walls. In my view the walls were probably at a stage in their life span and in a condition which meant they required repainting in keeping with their expected life span. In saying this I accept the photographs show wooden shelves were attached to walls in bedroom 5, however I evidence of the damage caused to the walls is not shown and I am not satisfied from the evidence that the damage was anything other than minimal.
Accordingly this part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has raised that the painting work took them some time to do which meant they could not re-tenant the premises for several months, and as a consequence they lost rental income of around $6,750.00. The landlord did not include this as part of its application but raised it on the day of the hearing. In doing that the respondents did not receive notice of the claim or have any chance to respond to it.
As I stated at the hearing as it was not included in the landlord’s application I have not given considered this issue. Regardless, I note that any party to a Tenancy Tribunal application is expected to mitigate its loss. The claim for lost rent together with the cost claimed by the landlord for painting work amounts to a larger sum than the cost of employing the painting contractor that the insurer’s settlement is based on.
Doors: The landlord claims their insurance excess ($550) to replace three sliding wardrobe doors in bedroom 5 and the excess to replace the door to bedroom 5. 4 6,093.62 x 15% = $914.05 per room 5 $6,093.62 x 10% = $609.36. 6 15% of the $914.50 = $137.11. 7 15% of $609.36 = $91.40. The landlord states that the sliding doors were water damaged and had swollen while they were stored in the laundry 8 , and that once the doors were re-instated they do not run along the track therefore the track must be damaged. They also claim the door to bedroom 5 is dented and requires replacing.
The tenants agree the three sliding wardrobe doors were removed and stored in the laundry during the first year of the tenancy and reinstated just before the tenancy ended. The tenant who occupied the bedroom said there was no sign of swelling on the doors when he reinstated them and that they freely ran along the track.
The landlord has not provided evidence that establishes the doors were swollen or did not run properly along the track. I note that the insurance assessor’s report gives no details on what is wrong with the wardrobe doors and does not mention any damage to the track or door rollers. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. A quote for the work was not provided.
The tenant says the bedroom door was dented when the tenancy started. However the pre-tenancy inspection report does not record any comment from with the landlord or the tenants about the door. I find the dent probably occurred during the tenancy. The dent to the door can be seen in the landlord’s photo, however the photo is taken from a distance and I am not persuaded that the dent requires the door to be replaced rather than repaired. The landlord has not replaced or repaired the door at this time. I find the sum received from the insurer ($276.92) is sufficient to cover the necessary repair and therefore the landlord has not suffered a loss. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Curtains: The linings of the curtains in the dining area were mouldy and required washing. The tenants say when they were washed the lining ripped and that they removed the lining from the curtains. The tenants accept they caused the damage to the curtains.
The curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. The replacement curtains cost $240.00.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I find the curtains had a reasonable life span of around eight years in tenancy premises and were about 3 years old at the end of the tenancy. I award $150.00, being 5/8ths of the replacement cost, as I am satisfied the curtains were around 3/8ths through their expected economic life span. 8 The tenant in bedroom 5 removed the doors at the start of the tenancy and stored them in the laundry until just before the tenancy ended.
Stain on exterior of the House: There was a stain on the exterior cladding below the kitchen window at the end of the tenancy. The landlord believed the stain was probably oil based as it would not clean off and they had to paint the wall. I am satisfied that this was caused during the tenancy probably as a result of something being thrown out of the kitchen window by either the tenants or someone at the premises with their permission.
I find the amount claimed of $100.00 is reasonable to rectify the damage to the paint.
Lawn Damage: After considering all of the evidence I find the lawn was damaged as a result of the tenants parking on the lawn. I find the tenants are liable for the damage regardless of whether the landlord gave the tenants express permission to park on the lawn or tacitly allowed them to do so.
Parking on a grassed area with permission or otherwise does not mean tenants should continue to do so if they are damaging the lawn. It would have been obvious damage was being caused and the premises has sufficient concrete surfaces for tenants/occupants to park on. I am not persuaded by the tenants’ contention that the temporary down pipe construction erected by the landlord had any impact on their liability.
The landlord claims $100 for top soil, plus $650 labour ($25/hr for 24 hrs) to collect and spread the top soil and sow grass. The landlord supported their claim with an estimate of $1,621.50 provided by a lawn contractor to prepare, provide top soil and hydroseed the area. I find hydroseeding lawn is at the expensive end of the range of work to repair a lawn and does not represent work actually done. The landlord has not supplied any record of the hours and time work was done to support the amount claimed.
I find for the work required the amount claimed is more than is reasonable compensation and award $400.00.

Who is ordered to pay?

The tenancy agreement recorded three tenants at the start of the tenancy. Two of the three tenants, [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], lived there throughout the tenancy. A succession of others replaced the third tenant. [Tenant 3] was the last of this succession and entered into an agreement to be a tenant to the tenancy on 11 January 2022.
The landlord agreed to the release of the various tenants and the variation of the tenancy agreement to the replacement tenants. Under the terms of the assignment [Tenant 3] is not responsible for any breaches, such as damage caused to the tenancy, that occurred before he was a tenant.
The effect of this decision is that the amount awarded to the landlord is deducted from the bond and the remaining bond is reimbursed to the tenants. Between the tenants, and potentially other occupants, any issues over who is liable to pay what will need to be resolved. That is this is for the tenants to sort out. If there is a dispute between the tenants regarding liability it will need to be resolved elsewhere, such as in the Disputes Tribunal. Other orders
The landlord has been partly successful in its claim and for that reason I award reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks suppression of its name and identifying details of the tenancy. Where an applicant is wholly or substantially successful in their claim and make an application for suppression the Tribunal must award suppression unless publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties conduct.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application therefore suppression is not granted for that reason. Of my own volition I suppress both the landlord and the tenants’ names and identifying details of the tenancy. In doing so I am satisfied that there is little public interest in publishing the decision, and that suppression is warranted as I have detailed payments the landlord has received from their insurer. (section 95A RTA).

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 5128488 — net $952.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and garden waste	$50.00	Rubbish removal: and garden waste
Repainting stain on exterior	$100.00	Repainting stain on exterior
Damage to lawn	$400.00	Damage to lawn
Damage to carpet	$100.00	Damage to carpet
Damage to vinyl	$50.00	Damage to vinyl
Replacement of curtains	$150.00	Replacement of curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$952.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$952.00

Claims and awards for application 5128488 — net $952.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal: and garden waste

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: and garden waste

Repainting stain on exterior

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repainting stain on exterior

Damage to lawn

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Damage to lawn

Damage to carpet

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Damage to carpet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $952.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $952.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,448.00
The landlord’s claim for compensation for doors and painting is dismissed.

Reasons

[Landlord 1] was joined as an applicant (landlord) at the hearing. She is named as a landlord on the tenancy agreement but had not been named as an applicant/landlord on the application.
[The landlord/s] (landlord) attended the hearing which was held as an in-person hearing. [The tenant/s] (tenants) also attended.
The tenancy commenced on 29 January 2021 for a fixed term of two years. The tenancy was renewed for a further fixed term tenancy for one year and then became periodic. The tenancy ended on 6 April 2024 as a result of the tenants giving 28 days’ notice.
The house is a 5 bedroomed house and there were 5 occupants living in the house throughout the tenancy. Not all occupants were tenants. There were changes to the tenants, however [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were tenants throughout the tenancy. [Tenant 3] became a tenant on 22 January 2022 .
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
Interior cleaning: The landlord claims $500, being $120 paid to a cleaner and $380 paid at $25/hr for 15.2 hours for cleaning carried out by their student children for cleaning the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I find the photographs/video provided by both parties establish that generally the tenants left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, but that some minor cleaning was needed to meet the standard required under the RTA. Tenants are not expected to leave the premises in a pristine condition, and it is expected that landlords are likely to do more cleaning before premises are re-let. I find $75.00 is reasonable compensation for the cleaning required based on the evidence presented.
This amount does not include any award for cleaning the interior of windows, windowsills or doorframes as the photographs presented do not establish these areas were not left reasonably clean. In making this award I note that the cleaner’s invoice is dated more than 2 months after the tenancy ended and that there is no written record supporting the cleaning done by the landlord’s children.
Removal of rubbish and garden waste: The landlord claims $111.50 for dump costs and $200.00 for 8 hours work at $25/hr).
The evidence establishes that the tenants left food in the food waste bin, the rubbish bin was full and needed emptying, a minimal amount of recycling was in the recycling bin and that the recycling and the bottle bins needed cleaning. The landlord’s photographs show there were 2 items left outside that should have been put into the rubbish.
The landlord claims for removal of lawn clippings and other garden waste. The landlord’s photographs show a small pile of twigs, but there are no photographs or video, taken by either the landlord or the tenant, of lawn clippings.
I am unable to determine what grass, if any, were left therefore no award is made for this part of the claim.
The invoice for dumping general rubbish ($83.01) is dated 18 April, being 12 days after the tenancy ended. I understand that invoice includes the dumping of the food waste and general household rubbish. However this invoice represents far more than a bag of rubbish and I am not convinced the household rubbish as taken to the refuse station that long after the tenancy ended.
I find based on the evidence that an award of $50.00 is reasonable compensation for the rubbish at the property and the cleaning of the bins.

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 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.
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 intentionally or carelessly during the tenancy:
Carpet: The landlord claims the carpet was stained and marked in the living/dining room and all 5 bedrooms during the tenancy. The landlord made a claim under their insurance policy which resulted in their insurer paying a settlement sum of $5,375.01 for new carpet to be installed in these rooms. The insurer considered each room as a separate event. The landlord claims their insurance excess for each room ($3,300.00 being 6 excesses at $550.00).
The pre-tenancy inspection report records floor coverings in all of the rooms claimed for as being of “average condition”. It also records the dining area had “marks/stains” and bedroom 1 had “marks”.
The tenants admit to having a fridge on the carpet in the dining area which I find caused rust stains. The tenants deny they caused any other marks or stains on the carpet other than what they consider to be fair wear and tear to the carpet, including the iron mark in the living/dining area.
There is significant wear to the carpet in two areas: the inside of the ranch slider and by the wall where the dining table was located. The tenants say these areas were worn when they moved in; the landlord says otherwise and that the areas became worn during the tenancy, particularly during the last 6 months of the tenancy.
No photographs of the condition of the carpet were taken by either party at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not present photographs of the carpet at the end of the tenancy for all of the bedrooms claimed, however the tenants did.
The landlord purchased the house 8 years before the tenancy ended and considered the carpet was 2-3 years old at the time of purchase. I find the carpet most likely was 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. I find 10 years to be the average expected life span of solution nylon carpet in tenancy premises.
I find the iron burn mark, rust mark and the wear around the kitchen table were caused by the tenants or others at the tenancy with their permission during the tenancy but that the landlord has not proven that the tenants have any liability for any other damage to the carpet.
The carpet’s reasonable economic life span had expired at the end of the tenancy. However I find the damage caused by the tenants accelerated the need for the carpet to be replaced and on that basis I find the tenants are liable to pay $100.00 towards the replacement of the carpet.
In making this award I have considered that the landlords paid $5,882.61 to replace the carpet in the living/dining room and the 5 bedrooms. This means the landlord had a shortfall of $507.60 after receiving their insurance settlement. In my view the landlord’s claim for 6 excesses grossly overstates their loss as it is based on a cost they did not pay 1 . The award made recognises the tenants have liability to contribute to the landlord’s loss, but that the landlord did not establish that a larger contribution would be fair or reasonable.
Vinyl: The landlord claims the insurance excess of $550.00 to replace lino in the laundry as there was a tear in the lino at the end of the tenancy. I find the damage was likely to be caused carelessly when the tenants moved out. The cost paid to replace the lino was $1,498.50, and the settlement from the landlord’s insurer was for $723.50. The lino was around 10 years old at the end of the tenancy.
I find ten years to be the average expected life span of vinyl flooring in tenancy premises. Therefore I find the reasonable economic life span of the vinyl had expired. However, I find the damage caused by the tenants accelerated the need for the vinyl to be replaced and on that basis I find the tenants are liable to pay $50.00 towards the replacement of the carpet.
Painting: The landlord claims there was damage to the walls throughout the house caused by the tenants attaching things to the walls with pins, nails, blue tack and command strips, as well as several dents in walls and that the damage is more than wear and tear. The landlord claims $3,300.00, being excesses of $550 for each of the 5 bedrooms and the living/dining room, to repair and paint the walls in these rooms.
The ingoing inspection report records the comment “Marks” in the column for walls/doors in all 5 bedrooms. The report also records the walls in bedroom 4 having 8 patched holes. There is no comment recorded on the condition of the walls in the living/dining room. The landlord did not take any photos at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided three photos of dents in walls and three photos of holes caused by pins/nails taken at the end of the tenancy. The rooms the photos are taken in are not identified and the landlord was not sure of their location. The 1 The landlord received a settlement payment of $5,375.01 based on a quote to replace the carpet less 6 excesses. The landlord’s then received a 30% discount on the quote settlement was based on when the carpet was installed. landlord also provided photos showing items attached to walls in bedrooms 3, 4 and 5 and on a wall in the living/dining room.
The tenants provided photos and a video showing the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ evidence is that when the tenancy started there were a) pre-existing pinholes and other marks on the walls in the bedrooms they occupied 2 and b) command hooks were on the walls, or there was evidence of past use of command strips, in several bedrooms.
I find that it is likely that some further damage has occurred to the walls during the tenancy, particularly as items have been attached to walls as shown in the photos for bedrooms 4 and 5 and the living room. In saying that bedroom 4 had 8 patched holes at the start of the tenancy. I am persuaded that blue tack was used in bedroom 3 and do not find that it caused any damage to walls in that room. The landlord has not provided photos specifying damage to walls in bedrooms 1 and 2.
However I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that the need for the walls to be repaired and repainted is solely attributable to damage caused during this tenancy. The landlord’s evidence of the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy is not sufficient to prove their claim. I am more persuaded that the walls and paint were in need of maintenance work regardless of damage caused during this tenancy.
The walls have not been painted since the landlord purchased the premises 8 years ago and there is no reliable evidence on when the walls were previously painted. I am satisfied that generally walls in living rooms in tenanted premises have an expected life span of around 8 – 12 years and that bedrooms have an expected life span of around 10-14 years.
On that basis I apply an average life span of 10 years to the living room and 12 years to the bedrooms. I find the painting of the walls is likely to have occurred around 10 years ago when the carpet was replaced. Therefore I find the expected life span of the living/dining room has expired and the bedrooms are about 85% through their expected life span. This means 15% of the expected life span of the paint in the bedrooms is remaining.
The insurance assessor has calculated that each of bedrooms 1-4 equates to 15% of the total work to paint the 5 bedrooms and the living/dining room, and that bedroom 5 represents 10% of the total painting work 3 . The landlord and their children painted the premises. The landlord claims $6,093.62 for the work/materials. On that basis, using the percentages calculated by the assessor, 2 (bedrooms 4, 5 and 6) 3 the Loss Adjusters letter to the landlord dated 27 May 2024 sets out the wall damage percentage per room as being 30% for the living/dining room; 15% each for bedrooms 1-4 and 10% for bedroom 5. I attribute a cost of $914.05 to each of bedrooms 1-4 4 and $609.36 to bedroom 5 5 .
In considering betterment and depreciation, the remaining expected life span of 15% for all of the bedrooms equates to $137.11 per room for bedrooms 1-4 6 and $91.40 for bedroom 5. 7 The total value of the remaining expected life span therefore for all the bedrooms amounts to $639.84.
The landlord’s insurer has settled with the landlord based on a on a quote from a painting contractor for $8,797.50. The insurer has not depreciated any costs and has paid the landlord $5,497.52 after deducting 6 insurance excesses of $550.00 for each room.
I find the landlord has again over represented their loss. Regardless, from the evidence presented I am not convinced that any of the damage caused during the tenancy has accelerated the need to repair and paint the walls. In my view the walls were probably at a stage in their life span and in a condition which meant they required repainting in keeping with their expected life span. In saying this I accept the photographs show wooden shelves were attached to walls in bedroom 5, however I evidence of the damage caused to the walls is not shown and I am not satisfied from the evidence that the damage was anything other than minimal.
Accordingly this part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has raised that the painting work took them some time to do which meant they could not re-tenant the premises for several months, and as a consequence they lost rental income of around $6,750.00. The landlord did not include this as part of its application but raised it on the day of the hearing. In doing that the respondents did not receive notice of the claim or have any chance to respond to it.
As I stated at the hearing as it was not included in the landlord’s application I have not given considered this issue. Regardless, I note that any party to a Tenancy Tribunal application is expected to mitigate its loss. The claim for lost rent together with the cost claimed by the landlord for painting work amounts to a larger sum than the cost of employing the painting contractor that the insurer’s settlement is based on.
Doors: The landlord claims their insurance excess ($550) to replace three sliding wardrobe doors in bedroom 5 and the excess to replace the door to bedroom 5. 4 6,093.62 x 15% = $914.05 per room 5 $6,093.62 x 10% = $609.36. 6 15% of the $914.50 = $137.11. 7 15% of $609.36 = $91.40. The landlord states that the sliding doors were water damaged and had swollen while they were stored in the laundry 8 , and that once the doors were re-instated they do not run along the track therefore the track must be damaged. They also claim the door to bedroom 5 is dented and requires replacing.
The tenants agree the three sliding wardrobe doors were removed and stored in the laundry during the first year of the tenancy and reinstated just before the tenancy ended. The tenant who occupied the bedroom said there was no sign of swelling on the doors when he reinstated them and that they freely ran along the track.
The landlord has not provided evidence that establishes the doors were swollen or did not run properly along the track. I note that the insurance assessor’s report gives no details on what is wrong with the wardrobe doors and does not mention any damage to the track or door rollers. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. A quote for the work was not provided.
The tenant says the bedroom door was dented when the tenancy started. However the pre-tenancy inspection report does not record any comment from with the landlord or the tenants about the door. I find the dent probably occurred during the tenancy. The dent to the door can be seen in the landlord’s photo, however the photo is taken from a distance and I am not persuaded that the dent requires the door to be replaced rather than repaired. The landlord has not replaced or repaired the door at this time. I find the sum received from the insurer ($276.92) is sufficient to cover the necessary repair and therefore the landlord has not suffered a loss. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Curtains: The linings of the curtains in the dining area were mouldy and required washing. The tenants say when they were washed the lining ripped and that they removed the lining from the curtains. The tenants accept they caused the damage to the curtains.
The curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. The replacement curtains cost $240.00.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I find the curtains had a reasonable life span of around eight years in tenancy premises and were about 3 years old at the end of the tenancy. I award $150.00, being 5/8ths of the replacement cost, as I am satisfied the curtains were around 3/8ths through their expected economic life span. 8 The tenant in bedroom 5 removed the doors at the start of the tenancy and stored them in the laundry until just before the tenancy ended.
Stain on exterior of the House: There was a stain on the exterior cladding below the kitchen window at the end of the tenancy. The landlord believed the stain was probably oil based as it would not clean off and they had to paint the wall. I am satisfied that this was caused during the tenancy probably as a result of something being thrown out of the kitchen window by either the tenants or someone at the premises with their permission.
I find the amount claimed of $100.00 is reasonable to rectify the damage to the paint.
Lawn Damage: After considering all of the evidence I find the lawn was damaged as a result of the tenants parking on the lawn. I find the tenants are liable for the damage regardless of whether the landlord gave the tenants express permission to park on the lawn or tacitly allowed them to do so.
Parking on a grassed area with permission or otherwise does not mean tenants should continue to do so if they are damaging the lawn. It would have been obvious damage was being caused and the premises has sufficient concrete surfaces for tenants/occupants to park on. I am not persuaded by the tenants’ contention that the temporary down pipe construction erected by the landlord had any impact on their liability.
The landlord claims $100 for top soil, plus $650 labour ($25/hr for 24 hrs) to collect and spread the top soil and sow grass. The landlord supported their claim with an estimate of $1,621.50 provided by a lawn contractor to prepare, provide top soil and hydroseed the area. I find hydroseeding lawn is at the expensive end of the range of work to repair a lawn and does not represent work actually done. The landlord has not supplied any record of the hours and time work was done to support the amount claimed.
I find for the work required the amount claimed is more than is reasonable compensation and award $400.00.

Who is ordered to pay?

The tenancy agreement recorded three tenants at the start of the tenancy. Two of the three tenants, [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], lived there throughout the tenancy. A succession of others replaced the third tenant. [Tenant 3] was the last of this succession and entered into an agreement to be a tenant to the tenancy on 11 January 2022.
The landlord agreed to the release of the various tenants and the variation of the tenancy agreement to the replacement tenants. Under the terms of the assignment [Tenant 3] is not responsible for any breaches, such as damage caused to the tenancy, that occurred before he was a tenant.
The effect of this decision is that the amount awarded to the landlord is deducted from the bond and the remaining bond is reimbursed to the tenants. Between the tenants, and potentially other occupants, any issues over who is liable to pay what will need to be resolved. That is this is for the tenants to sort out. If there is a dispute between the tenants regarding liability it will need to be resolved elsewhere, such as in the Disputes Tribunal. Other orders
The landlord has been partly successful in its claim and for that reason I award reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks suppression of its name and identifying details of the tenancy. Where an applicant is wholly or substantially successful in their claim and make an application for suppression the Tribunal must award suppression unless publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties conduct.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application therefore suppression is not granted for that reason. Of my own volition I suppress both the landlord and the tenants’ names and identifying details of the tenancy. In doing so I am satisfied that there is little public interest in publishing the decision, and that suppression is warranted as I have detailed payments the landlord has received from their insurer. (section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5128488 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5128488 — 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?

Who is ordered to pay?

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?

Who is ordered to pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions