How much money was awarded in case 5160386?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wardrobe: $24.42 awarded to landlord; Vanity: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160386?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160386?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11768947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5160386?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wardrobe: $24.42 awarded to landlord; Vanity: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160386?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160386?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11768947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2540 Wards Road, Darfield, RD 1, Darfield 7571 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160386 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160386 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160386 — net $1,101.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Vanity	$750.00	Repairs: Vanity
Repairs: Hole in Wardrobe	$24.42	Repairs: Hole in Wardrobe
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,101.42
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,101.42

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Graham John Edwards $1,101.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Graham John Edwards: $1,101.42 [The tenant/s]: $98.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr and Mrs Edwards attended by telephone and their property manager attended in person. One of the tenant’s, [Tenant 1], attended. Mr Subritzky did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant, [Tenant 1], had applied for refund of the bond but withdrew that application. In any event, the bond will be determined by the outcome of the landlord application.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)

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 standard is “reasonably clean”. It is not pristine or commercially clean. It is not necessarily the standard the premises were provided in, or the standard a landlord may wish to present the property to a new tenant or prospective purchaser.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided some photographs from the end of the tenancy and an invoice for $632.50 for cleaning. The photographs did not include the oven, toilets, inside of showers or other areas likely to have been time consuming. The photographs show that some additional cleaning was required, but not to the extent claimed. Based on the photographs provided, I award $300 for cleaning.

The landlord also claimed $1,235.84 for lawn mowing and garden maintenance. The tenancy ended on 13 December 2024. The photographs provided (of the lawns only) were taken in January 2025, the lawns were mowed and gardens tidied on 23 January and again on 30 January 2025. That is the evidence, is from 6 weeks after the tenancy ended during summer months. The tenant said that the lawns were mowed when she left the property, and it is unreasonable for the landlord to attempt recover work done after 6 weeks of growth at the property. I accept that submission. The claim for lawn and garden work is dismissed.

The landlord also claimed that it had to replace 23 lightbulbs but did not provide evidence of the allegedly missing lightbulbs and did not explain how failure to replace lightbulbs may breach the tenant’s obligations under the RTA. That claim is dismissed.

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.

The tenancy agreement does not appear to contain the insurance information required by s13(2) RTA. However, the landlord advised the Tribunal that its excess is $750 but that it did not make a claim in respect of the alleged damage as the repair value was only slightly more than its excess. If the landlord chooses not to make a claim, the tenant’s liability is still limited to the amount of excess which would have been payable ($750).

The landlord claimed that a vanity top was damaged during the tenancy. The top was stained with an oil and the tenant accepted responsibility for that. I also find that the damage was carelessly caused, and the tenant is liable for the damage, up to $750.00. The repair cost was $963.60, so I award $750.

The landlord also claimed $993.37 for a replacement laundry tub. The landlord claimed that there had been a leak during the tenancy, from the tenant’s washing machine which had caused damage. The tenant said that the laundry was in the same condition at the start of the tenancy and that she was not aware of any leak. There were no in-going photographs of the laundry (or any other area of the property), the ingoing inspection report records that the laundry tub was in acceptable condition. The outgoing photographs show a degraded panel or lining in the laundry. The landlord’s property manager said that the damage or degradation was not evident until the tenant’s washing machine was removed, she said that the panelling was not damp.

The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that laundry damage occurred during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.

The landlord also claimed $727.08 for 8 replacement door handles. Their property manager said that only three were not working at the end of the tenancy. All the handles were replaced because they were starting to fail, the lever handle needed to be lifted to operate rather than being pulled down. This is wear and tear and is a landlord maintenance obligation. The claim for door handles is dismissed.

A wardrobe door panel was also damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award $24.42 as claimed.

As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Overall, [Tenant 1], was the substantially successful party so I have supressed her details. The other joint tenant did not take an active role in the proceedings, I have not suppressed his details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160386 — net $1,101.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Vanity	$750.00	Repairs: Vanity
Repairs: Hole in Wardrobe	$24.42	Repairs: Hole in Wardrobe
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,101.42
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,101.42

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Graham John Edwards $1,101.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Graham John Edwards: $1,101.42 [The tenant/s]: $98.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr and Mrs Edwards attended by telephone and their property manager attended in person. One of the tenant’s, [Tenant 1], attended. Mr Subritzky did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant, [Tenant 1], had applied for refund of the bond but withdrew that application. In any event, the bond will be determined by the outcome of the landlord application.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that laundry damage occurred during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.

A wardrobe door panel was also damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award $24.42 as claimed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160386 — Property damage at 2540 Wards Road, Darfield, RD 1, Darfield 7571

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160386 — Property damage at 2540 Wards Road, Darfield, RD 1, Darfield 7571

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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