What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5128552 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 5128552?

Tribunal Orders Suppression Of The T…: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5128552?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5128552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11720681-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5128552 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 5128552?

Tribunal Orders Suppression Of The T…: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5128552?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5128552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11720681-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5128552 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5128552. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] are ordered to pay Property	$100.00		Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] are ordered to pay Property
Bond		$2,800.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5128552. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] are ordered to pay Property	$100.00		Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] are ordered to pay Property
Bond		$2,800.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are ordered to pay Property Brokers Limited $100.00 rent arrears from the bond as set out in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited: $100.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,700.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Property Manager, Ms Fiona Nelson.
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of their bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 17 December 2021 and ended on 29 November 2024. The end of the tenancy came about because on 21 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenants 90 days’ notice to vacate on the basis that the owner intended to complete extensive renovations on the property. The email said that the remedial work would be commencing within 90 days of the vacate date and it had been deemed unsafe or impractical for anyone to reside in the property during the renovations. The tenants were notified that if they wanted to vacate earlier, they were required to give 28 days’ notice.
The tenants then gave 28 days’ notice leading to a termination date of 29 November.
The property manager and the tenants met at the premises on 20 November 2024 and the tenants moved out on 22 November, one week before the final termination date.
The onus of proof is on the party applying for an order. Therefore the onus of proof for the landlord’s claims is on the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that the Tribunal must be satisfied that an allegation is more than likely to be true.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 November 2024. The tenant had paid the rent up until 28 November and accepted that they owed one day’s rent which amounts to $100, as shown in the rent records provided by the landlord. The amount ordered is proved.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In support of this claim, the landlord provided copies of: a. Entry inspection report dated 14 December 2021 b. Exit inspection report dated 29 November 2024 c. A quote dated 8 January 2025 for $1,091.35 for cleaning, including the windows interior and exterior and washing the ceiling.
The tenant said that they cleaned the premises. The property manager agreed that they had vacuumed and cleaned the bathrooms. When asked if they had wiped all surfaces, the property manager said that they were sticky. The property manager said that the light shades, walls and curtains were not cleaned. The bathroom had been cleaned but there was mould on the ceiling.
The landlord said that there was fly dirt on the kitchen lights, the blinds were “caked” and the rangehood had not been cleaned.
The tenant’s obligation is not to leave the premises in immaculate condition, or ready for the next tenant. They must leave them reasonably clean and tidy.
In this case, the tenants had lived at the premises for three years. Sometimes with a longer tenancy such as this one, there is more cleaning to be done if the tenants have not had the occasional spring clean. Their obligation is also to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. They should have cleaned the rangehood and kept the venetian blinds clean.
Besides that, based on the photographs produced by the landlord the premises appear reasonably clean and tidy. Although the landlord provided a quote for cleaning, there was no evidence of what the landlord had actually paid for cleaning. The loss to be compensated has not been quantified.
No order for cleaning is made.
The landlord’s main concern was the carpets. The property manager noticed that they were smelly. This is discussed under damage below.

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. 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. Carpet
As noted above, the property manager found that the carpet in the lounge was smelly at the end of the tenancy. An email from JAE services was provided. It recorded that a technician met the property manager at the house on 5 December. It records that there are many stains throughout and it was very smelly. It says that it would take many cleans to fully get the smell out, and it may not work as the floor may have soaked in some of the urine. It says that the carpet is very damaged and the cleaning would cost approximately $1,200. Replacement was recommended.
The property manager said that new carpet had to be put down, and the excess was $2,750.
The tenants said that they had 3 adult dogs that were all house-trained. They said that the smell was caused by a burst pipe in the wall. The lounge carpet had been saturated. No dehumidifiers were provided by the landlord or carpet cleaning done. They had the carpets cleaned before they moved out. They produced a copy of a letter from a person who had undertaken cleaning of the property and said that she had been present when the carpet cleaners came. They also produced a series of texts on 17 and 18 November with RenewX confirming that they would clean the carpet on 26 November and also a text with some photos attached, saying, “Hi, The job done”.
The tenants also said that they believed that the carpet was the original, from when the house was first built in 2007. Therefore, at the end of the tenancy, the carpet would have been at least 17 years old.
The property manager did not know how old the carpet was or the cost of the replacement carpet. She acknowledged that there were some stains on the carpet at the start of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy, the smell was the issue.
The landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the carpets needed to be replaced because of any intentional or careless action of the tenants. The tenants had agreed to have the carpets cleaned because they had dogs and I am satisfied that they did so. It is possible that any smell in the carpet was as a result of the leak. The claim is dismissed.
I add that even if it were established that the tenants were responsible for some damage to the carpet, 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. According to the IRD depreciation rates, a carpet in a rental property has depreciated to no value by the end of 8 years. Therefore, it is likely that no or minimal compensation would be ordered for replacement of this carpet. Other damage
The landlord provided a quote dated 16 January 2025 from Smith and Sons for painting one bedroom for $580 plus GST and another dated 15 January 2025 for $3,585.00 plus GST ($4,122.75) for the following: a. The painting of four bedroom and hallway walls b. The painting of windowsills and an entranceway sill c. The repair of various small holes in walls to a paint finish d. To supply and install two wall panel heaters. e. The replacement of a broken door handle.
There is no dispute that the tenants had asked to paint one of the bedrooms blue. The landlord agreed on the basis that it would be returned to its original colour at the end of the tenancy. The property manager said that the tenants had not done so.
The tenants said that they had asked to paint the bedroom, but had not actually painted it. Although the commentary in the entry inspection report says that only one wall in that bedroom was blue, the photos show that all the walls in that bedroom were blue, as were the walls in other bedrooms.
The property manager said that at the end of the tenancy the relevant bedroom is a different blue.
The walls of various rooms are all a shade of light blue. It is possible that the blue in the relevant bedroom is slightly different from the other rooms, but the onus is on the landlord to prove it is more likely than not that the walls have been painted. The tenants say that they did not paint them, and the photos are not sufficiently persuasive for me to find that on the balance of probabilities, the tenants painted the walls.
Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence of a loss from repainting the walls. The property manager said that the only work undertaken is on the shower (which is not part of the claim against the tenants) and the carpet. The walls have not been painted.
This claim is dismissed because the landlord has not established that the tenant painted the walls or that the landlord has suffered a loss.
The photographs also show areas where the wallpaper has been torn near the joins. It appears that this damage occurred during the tenancy. However, the age of the wallpaper is not known. The landlord has not paid for any repairs and so the landlord has not sustained a loss. This claim is dismissed.
The photographs showing some scratched windowsills, and door jamb.
The tenants agreed that during the tenancy some damage occurred in the main entranceway, but argued that it was fair wear and tear. They noted that they thought that the landlord was going to undertake major renovations, based on the termination letter.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is not simply some scuffs or one or two scratches. It appears that someone, whether an adult, a child or an animal, has repeatedly scratched the windowsill in the master bedroom, the ranch slider wooden door jamb and the entrance doorway.
However, at the date of the hearing on 3 April 2025, some four months after the end of the tenancy, these repairs have not been undertaken. The landlord has not established a loss and so this claim is dismissed.
The tenants agreed that there were some small holes in two walls where there had been panel heaters that had been broken. The tenants had provided replacement heaters but had told the landlord that they were not going to instal them because they had been told that the landlord was undertaking extensive renovations.
I find that the tenants are not responsible for those holes in the walls, which were as a result of the panel heaters being attached to the walls, but are responsible for not putting the replacement heaters back up. Either the landlord is replacing the heaters or is renovating, as set out in the 90 day notice to vacate. Neither has occurred. The landlord has not incurred a loss and so this claim is dismissed.
The tenant left a new panel heater and a second-hand one behind to replace the two that had been removed. The landlord did not have any details on the age or value of the heaters that had been there. The landlord has not quantified any loss in relation to the heaters. The claim is dismissed.
There was no discussion at the hearing about a replacement door handle.
There was some discussion about the front of a drawer missing in the kitchen, but the landlord is claiming insurance to have the kitchen drawers fixed.
The landlord said that some wire baskets were missing from a cupboard. The tenant said they were in the cupboard. No evidence of replacement baskets was provided.
The landlord also said that there were tears in a curtain, but these have not been replaced. The landlord has not established a loss.
The landlord provided a quote for $2,776.10 for removal of a fire pit the tenants had put in the lawn. This was a circle, 1 to 2 metres in diameter, made of at least 40 small rocks. The area in the middle is cinders. Again, the landlord has not had the work done and so the loss has not been incurred or quantified. Summary
Although I am satisfied that some of the damage to the property is more than fair wear and tear, it is not reasonable that a tenant should pay compensation based on quotes. This is because a landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs. In fact, a landlord may not even have the repairs undertaken at all.
In the present situation, it is more than four months since the tenancy was terminated and yet the repairs have not been completed. Moreover, the tenancy was terminated as a result of a 90-day notice given on 21 October 2024 on the basis that the owner intended on “completing extensive renovations of the property.” The notice said, “The remedial work on the property will be commencing within 90 days of your vacate date and it has been deemed unsafe, or impractical for anyone to reside in the property during the renovations”.
The property manager said that the major renovation was the bathroom, where the tiles in the shower were lifting. The shower has now been fixed.
The tenants pointed out that there were two bathrooms and so they do not understand why they needed to vacate the property at all.
The tenants agreed at the hearing that they owe one day’s rent. They have been substantially successful and so there is an order for name suppression for them. I make no orders for refund of filing fees to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5128552 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5128552 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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