What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164392 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 5164392?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164392?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164392?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11727836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164392 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 5164392?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164392?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164392?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11727836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164392 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164392 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord is to pay $27.00 to the tenants immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 15 April 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 12 January 2024 and ended on 9 January 2025.
The tenants seek release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord has filed a cross application seeking compensation for damage to the floor, cleaning , release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Money paid by way of a bond is, until such time as it is proven to the contrary, a tenant’s money.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters”. (the emphasis is mine).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord confirmed that the cleaning invoice claimed for, was in relation to the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy. It is generally accepted by the Tribunal that the standard of “reasonably clean and tidy” is a lower standard than that required of a landlord at the commencement of a tenancy. The initial claim by the landlord was for $207.58. During the course of the hearing the landlord consented to a reduction in the claim to $103.79.
I have reviewed the photographs of the premises taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I consider that the photos show premises which have been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenants. The application for cleaning costs 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 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. The landlord his insurance cover. The landlord confirmed that the excess on the policy was $400.00. There was no suggestion in the landlord’s evidence that any damage which may have been caused by the tenants, had been caused intentionally. The tenants maximum potential liability is therefore limited to $400.00.
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.
The following damage occurred during the tenancy: the landlord provided photos of the floor in the dining room. The photos show damage to the floor.
The landlord accepted that the damage had occurred as a result of the base of chairs and a table being moved by the tenants from time to time as they were used. The landlord referred to the marks as “dents and gouges”.
The tenants referred to the damage shown in the photos as surface scratches. The tenants said that the quote obtained by the landlord for repairs from the Floor Store, indicated that the contractor intended to attempt a wax repair of the damaged timber planking, with the aim to remove scratches and gouges as best as possible, and that this supported their view that the damage was minor in nature. The matter is not quite as simple as the tenants may wish to suggest. The quote indicated that it was possible that the repairs would not achieve the desired result, which would then require the timber boards to be replaced at a substantially greater cost.
The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. They must prove that this occurred to the civil standard of more likely than not. The landlord provided photos of the premises taken at the commencement of the tenancy. No damage is shown to the floor. I accept that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy.
The landlord is also required to prove on the civil standard that the damage did not occur is a result of fair wear and tear.
“Fair wear and tear” has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.
In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
The landlord accepted that no warnings were given to the tenants at the commencement of the tenancy, that they must ensure that the wooden flooring was protected from damage caused by chair and table legs being moved.
In the Tribunals view, the damage has been caused by the tenants as a result of moving chairs over the wooden flooring. The tenants have raised fair wear and tear as a plausible explanation for the damage. No warning was given by the landlord that the wooden surface was susceptible to damage by the normal use of the furniture by the tenants. In those circumstances, the claim is dismissed.
The tenants’ bond is released to the tenants.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164392 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord is to pay $27.00 to the tenants immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 15 April 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 12 January 2024 and ended on 9 January 2025.
The tenants seek release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord has filed a cross application seeking compensation for damage to the floor, cleaning , release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Money paid by way of a bond is, until such time as it is proven to the contrary, a tenant’s money.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters”. (the emphasis is mine).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord confirmed that the cleaning invoice claimed for, was in relation to the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy. It is generally accepted by the Tribunal that the standard of “reasonably clean and tidy” is a lower standard than that required of a landlord at the commencement of a tenancy. The initial claim by the landlord was for $207.58. During the course of the hearing the landlord consented to a reduction in the claim to $103.79.
I have reviewed the photographs of the premises taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I consider that the photos show premises which have been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenants. The application for cleaning costs 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 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. The landlord his insurance cover. The landlord confirmed that the excess on the policy was $400.00. There was no suggestion in the landlord’s evidence that any damage which may have been caused by the tenants, had been caused intentionally. The tenants maximum potential liability is therefore limited to $400.00.
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.
The following damage occurred during the tenancy: the landlord provided photos of the floor in the dining room. The photos show damage to the floor.
The landlord accepted that the damage had occurred as a result of the base of chairs and a table being moved by the tenants from time to time as they were used. The landlord referred to the marks as “dents and gouges”.
The tenants referred to the damage shown in the photos as surface scratches. The tenants said that the quote obtained by the landlord for repairs from the Floor Store, indicated that the contractor intended to attempt a wax repair of the damaged timber planking, with the aim to remove scratches and gouges as best as possible, and that this supported their view that the damage was minor in nature. The matter is not quite as simple as the tenants may wish to suggest. The quote indicated that it was possible that the repairs would not achieve the desired result, which would then require the timber boards to be replaced at a substantially greater cost.
The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. They must prove that this occurred to the civil standard of more likely than not. The landlord provided photos of the premises taken at the commencement of the tenancy. No damage is shown to the floor. I accept that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy.
The landlord is also required to prove on the civil standard that the damage did not occur is a result of fair wear and tear.
“Fair wear and tear” has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.
In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
The landlord accepted that no warnings were given to the tenants at the commencement of the tenancy, that they must ensure that the wooden flooring was protected from damage caused by chair and table legs being moved.
In the Tribunals view, the damage has been caused by the tenants as a result of moving chairs over the wooden flooring. The tenants have raised fair wear and tear as a plausible explanation for the damage. No warning was given by the landlord that the wooden surface was susceptible to damage by the normal use of the furniture by the tenants. In those circumstances, the claim is dismissed.
The tenants’ bond is released to the tenants.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164392 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164392 — Tenancy dispute

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