Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5129191 — Property damage
Decided 13 Oct 2025 · Published 13 Oct 2025 · Application 5129191
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The applicant/s]’s and [The tenant/s]’s name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]), being [The tenant/s]’s share of $650.00 less $32.50 for carpet cleaning, to [The tenant/s] immediately.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,674.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,674.75 [The tenant/s]: $925.25
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 28 May 2025.
- This matter involves two applications. The landlord, [The property management company], seeks compensation for damage and cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The second application is from the tenant, [The tenant/s], seeking a refund of her bond and compensation for rent paid following her early withdrawal from the tenancy due to family violence. Background
- The tenancy commenced on 22 March 2024 and ended on 8 December 2024. The weekly rent was $650, with a bond of $2,600.
- The landlord’s application (5129191) is brought against multiple tenants—Ms Asperen, [Tenant 2], Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer. The landlord seeks compensation for alleged damage to the premises and carpet cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says that while efforts were made to vary the tenancy agreement to reflect changes in occupants—specifically, to remove [Tenant 2] and add Ms Crawford and Mr Palmer—no signed variation was returned, and as such, the original tenancy agreement remained in place.
- The landlord claims compensation (application 5129191) as follows: • $1,017.75 for interior painting to correct damage and incorrect repainting by tenants and dent repairs; • $130.00 for professional carpet cleaning and stain treatment; • $115.00 for rubbish removal and garden/lawn tidy up.
- The tenant, has filed a cross-application (5068433) seeking: • A refund of her share of the bond, being $650; and • Compensation of $326.00 for rent paid after vacating the property under circumstances related to family violence. Legal Framework
- Under section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and not cause or permit intentional or careless damage.
- Section 56B RTA allows tenants affected by family violence to withdraw from a tenancy. The tenant remains liable to pay rent until the effective date of withdrawal.
- In joint tenancies, all tenants remain jointly and severally liable until formally released or removed from the tenancy agreement by way of written variation or lawful withdrawal. Analysis Issue 1: Landlord’s Claims for Compensation
- The landlord has produced entry and exit inspection reports, photographs, and invoices supporting claims for painting, carpet cleaning, and garden/lawn tidy up. [Decorating] Invoice – $1,017.75
- The evidence shows that some areas of the walls were painted over in a mismatched colour. This supports the landlord’s claim that remedial painting was necessary.
- Ms Asperen claims she used paint left by earlier contractors and believed it was appropriate. While she may have acted with good intentions, she did not seek landlord consent before carrying out work.
- Dents also needed repairing and were beyond fair wear and tear.
- The landlord accepts that a portion of the invoice related to repairs to a door that was not the tenants’ responsibility. A $180.00 reduction is applied, reflecting a reasonable cost for labour, materials and GST.
- [Tenant 2] was no longer residing at the premises at the time and there is no evidence linking her to the painting issues or the dents.
- After deduction, Ms Asperen, Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer are jointly and severally liable for $837.75. [Carpet] Invoice – $130.00
- The evidence shows a carpet stain was in the fourth bedroom at the end of the tenancy. Ms Asperen and Ms Crawford claim this room had been occupied by [Tenant 2], and she operated a beauty business from it. [Tenant 2] denies causing any damage and states no stain was present when she vacated.
- There was no exit inspection conducted when [Tenant 2] left.
- Given the lack of conclusive evidence, it is reasonable that [Tenant 2] be held jointly liable with Ms Asperen, Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer for this item. The cost is therefore apportioned evenly between the tenants: $32.50 each, totalling $130.00. [Garden services] ($115.00)
- The claim for lawn/garden tidy up is supported by the photographs and an invoice. The landlord accepts that some rubbish was present at the start of the tenancy and should not have been the tenants’ responsibility. A deduction of $20.00 is applied.
- The remaining cost of $95.00 is recoverable from Ms Asperen, Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer, who were still residing at the property. [Tenant 2] is not liable for this amount. Issue 2: [Tenant 2]’s Claim for Bond Refund
- [Tenant 2]’s seeks a refund of her $650 share of the bond. It is not disputed that she paid this amount, and there is no evidence that her bond was used for other agreed purposes. After deducting her share of the carpet cleaning cost ($32.50), [Tenant 2]’s is entitled to a refund of $617.50. Issue 3: [Tenant 2]’s Claim for a Rent Refund/Compensation
- [Tenant 2] provided credible evidence that she left the premises due to family violence on 21 August 2024 and formally withdrew from the tenancy on 3 September 2024.
- [Tenant 2] seeks compensation for rent paid between 21 August and 3 September 2024. She argues she was pushed out by other tenants and had been replaced by another occupant.
- While [Tenant 2] physically vacated the premises on 21 August, she did not formally withdraw from the tenancy under section 56B until 3 September 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed to an earlier termination date.
- [Tenant 2] further claims that she had been “replaced,” but no signed variation to the tenancy agreement was produced. The landlord issued a lease variation form only on 27 October 2024, and this was not signed or finalised.
- Under section 56B RTA, a tenant remains liable for rent until the effective date of their formal withdrawal on 3 September 2024. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that [Tenant 2] was released from her rental obligations prior to 3 September 2024.
- Accordingly, the Tribunal acknowledges the challenging circumstances described by [Tenant 2], however the legal framework does not permit retrospective rent refund unless a replacement tenant has been formally installed or her withdrawal took effect earlier. [Tenant 2]’s claim for a refund of two weeks’ rent/compensation is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
- Name suppression under section 95A RTA is discretionary and may be granted where publication would be unfair or cause undue hardship, even if a party is not wholly or substantially successful.
- [Tenant 2] has provided credible evidence that she withdrew from the tenancy due to family violence and safety concerns. She was advised by the police to leave the property and took steps to formalise her withdrawal. Although her compensation claim was dismissed on legal grounds, the circumstances of her departure are highly sensitive. The Tribunal therefore grants name suppression to [Tenant 2] in the interests of privacy and safety, despite her not being wholly or substantially successful in her claim.
- The Tribunal is not satisfied that name suppression should be granted to Ms Asperen, Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer.
- As [Tenant 2] was not wholly or substantially successful in her claim, she is not entitled to reimbursement of her filing fee.
- The landlord was substantially successful in their claim against Ms Asperen, Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer. Accordingly, Ms Asperen, Ms Crawford, and Mr Palmer are jointly to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee and the landlord is granted suppression of their name and identifying details.