What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5168013 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 5168013?

Property Damage: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Glass In Laundry Door: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Painting: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting: $139.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5168013?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5168013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11864779-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5168013 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 5168013?

Property Damage: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Glass In Laundry Door: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Painting: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting: $139.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5168013?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5168013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11864779-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 7 Orchard Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5168013 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5168013 — net $1,616.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Garage remote replacement	$80.50	By consent: Garage remote replacement
Garden work	$200.00	Garden work
Repairs: Glass in laundry door	$247.25	Repairs: Glass in laundry door
Repairs: Painting	$850.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Skirting	$139.00	Repairs: Skirting
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,616.75
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,616.75

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5168013 — net $1,616.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Garage remote replacement	$80.50	By consent: Garage remote replacement
Garden work	$200.00	Garden work
Repairs: Glass in laundry door	$247.25	Repairs: Glass in laundry door
Repairs: Painting	$850.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Skirting	$139.00	Repairs: Skirting
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,616.75
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,616.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,616.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,616.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,183.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 May 2025.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross-application for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 2 The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy therefore relates to the inside of the premises, as well as the lawns and garden.
“Reasonably” clean and tidy means to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean and tidy, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Garden Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted an invoice for $345.00 (including GST) to tidy up the garden.
The landlord submitted photographs of the garden taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show the garden in a very clean and tidy condition. All of the trees, shrubs and plants are neatly trimmed. There is space in between plants in the garden. No weeds are apparent.
The landlord submitted photographs of the garden taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the garden in very full state. It appears overgrown with no space in between the plants and trees. A lot of foliage are apparent on the ground and it does not look tidy. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that they were shocked by the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the garden. The tenant claims they always took a lot of pride in the garden. The tenant feels they left the garden in a better state at the end of the tenancy than what they received it in at the beginning. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The tenant submits that the reason the landlord undertook work in the garden is because they intended to sell the property, not because the tenant left it unreasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant submitted a photograph of the garden taken at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord’s claim for compensation only relates to the garden. The landlord accepts that the tenant left the lawns in a very neat and tidy condition.
Based on the photographs submitted by both parties of the garden at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy. In both sets of photographs, the garden appears overgrown and very full. The garden bed appears to be covered in weeds or some other sort of plant that has grown over a significant part of the garden bed. There are no spaces in between the shrubs and trees. It does not look tidy.
Comparing the photographs of the garden taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, it is clear that the garden was left in quite a different state. Whilst the tenant does not have to return the garden in the exact same condition at the end of the tenancy, they do need to return it in a reasonably clean and tidy one, which I find they did not.
The landlord’s invoice for tidying up the garden includes the cost of removing a tree. The tenant is not responsible for this part of the invoice, only that part which fairly and reasonably reflects the time spent weeding and tidying up the garden. I consider $200.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the garden is granted for $200.00. Rubbish removal Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant left approximately four black rubbish bags of green waste in the garden. The landlord also claims the tenant left lettering on the trellis, a large tile, fairy lights and a chair on the deck.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $335.00 for rubbish removal. Part of the invoice includes removal of a minifridge, which the landlord accepts did not belong to the tenant.
The landlord did not submit any photographs to support their claim for rubbish removal. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant accepts that they left some green waste behind but gave evidence this was only one black rubbish bag, not four. The tenant accepts that they left behind some artwork with the words “Beach Hut” on the trellis. The tenant also accepts that they left behind a large paving stone, which they used to place an outdoor brazier on.
The tenant gave evidence that they had no knowledge about a chair and that the fairy lights were present at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
In the absence of photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left behind four black rubbish bags of green waste, fairy lights or a chair on the deck.
On the basis of the admissions made by the tenant, I find that they left behind one black rubbish bag of green waste, as well as a paving stone and some artwork on the trellis.
The landlord has incurred a cost of $335.00 to remove rubbish and miscellaneous items from the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is only responsible for a portion of this invoice that fairly reflects the items I have found they left behind. I consider $100.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $100.00.

DAMAGE

The law

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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9
The landlord claims the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken glass pane in laundry door b. Downstairs workshop converted and walls painted in a different colour c. Window latches and doorhandles broken
I deal with each issue in turn below. Broken glass pane in laundry door Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord submitted a photograph of the laundry door taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The glass pane on the bottom is intact.
The landlord also submitted a photograph of the laundry door taken at the end of the tenancy. The glass pane on the bottom has a crack in it.
The landlord submits that a comparison of the two sets of photographs proves that the laundry door was damaged during the tenancy by a tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord submits the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant accepts that the glass pane in the bottom of the laundry door cracked during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that a gust of wind blew the laundry door closed one day and it cracked.
In response to some questions from the Tribunal, the tenant gave evidence that they often kept the laundry door open to ventilate the property. The tenant gave evidence that on the day the door slammed shut it was a windy day. The tenant claims that they usually kept a small wedge under the laundry door to hold it open, but could not recall if they did so on the day that the door slammed closed. Analysis
I find that the crack in the bottom glass pane of the laundry door occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. This means that the 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. tenant bares the onus of proving that the damage was not careless or intentional on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant accepts that the door was kept open on a windy day and they cannot recall if the wedge was placed in front of it or not. In these circumstances, the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that they were not careless.
The tenant is responsible for the damage caused to the glass pane in the laundry door.
The landlord submitted an invoice to replace the glass pane in the laundry door for $247.25.
The landlord gave evidence that they did not make a claim with their insurer, as their excess is greater than the repair cost.
The cost to repair the laundry door is less than four weeks rent ($950.00 per week).
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the glass pane in the laundry door is granted for $247.25. Painting downstairs room/garage and skirting board repair Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant converted a workshop downstairs into a separate room by erecting a wall. The landlord claims the tenant did not have permission to do this and that they only discovered it had occurred after the fact.
The landlord gave evidence that it was agreed between the parties that the tenant would restore the room to its original condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenant did not this and the paintjob completed by the tenant was not up to the appropriate standard. The landlord claims it was painted a different colour from the rest of the wall. The landlord also claims the skirting board was damaged.
The landlord submitted photographs of the area taken at the end of the tenancy. The wall is white and whilst the tenant has attempted to paint parts of the wall that were affected in a similar colour, there is a noticeable colour difference. The skirting also looks damaged.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,150.00 to repaint the room and $139.00 to repair the skirting. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that they sought permission from the landlord to convert the workshop downstairs into a separate room. The tenant claims they would not have erected a wall without permission.
The tenant gave evidence that the room was initially used by them as an art room however, when Covid-19 hit New Zealand, the tenant accepts that some family lived in the room, as well as students later on.
The tenant gave evidence that they painted the wall twice and submits that the converted room looks better than the original workshop. Analysis
Regardless of whether the tenant had permission to convert the workshop into a room or not, I find that they damaged the wall by painting it in a different colour than the rest of the wall at the end of the tenancy. The difference in colour is not very obvious at first glance, but when one pauses to look at the wall, it is apparent over a relatively large area.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I also find that part of the skirting in the workshop was damaged during the conversion. The before and after photographs of the workshop are quite different and confirm that a relatively substantial amount of work was undertaken, including the removal of numerous tables affixed to the wall. I find it more likely than not that the skirting was damaged during this process.
I accept the landlord’s submission that to fix the mismatching paint on the walls, the entire workshop needed to be repainted and a patch repair was not possible. In saying that, the capital value of the premises has increased as a result of the workshop being repainted with new paint and there needs to be an adjustment for betterment. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They should not be better or worse off.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,150.00 to repaint the workshop. I consider an adjustment of $300.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repaint the workshop is granted for $850.00.
The landlord submitted an invoice to repair the skirting for $139.00. The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the skirting is granted for this amount. Window latches and door handles Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that door handles and window latches were broken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims these items were not broken at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord was unsure about the age of the window latches and door handle, but accepted they were most likely original and had some age to them.
The landlord submits that the damage is not fair wear and tear, because the tenant had more people than the tenancy agreement permitted living at the address.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the broken doorhandles or window latches.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $728.00 to repair three doorhandles and one set of window latches. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that they had no knowledge about any door handles or window latches being broken at the end of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that one door handle fell off during the tenancy, but this was repaired.
The tenant denied that they ever housed extra people without the permission of the landlord. Analysis
In the absence of photographs of the broken door handles and window latches, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that these items were damaged during the tenancy. Even if the landlord had proven this, I would most likely consider the damage to be fair wear and tear. The landlord accepted that the door handles and window latches were most likely original and relatively old at the beginning of this tenancy, which was nine years long.
The landlord has not proven this claim and it is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5168013 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 7 Orchard Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5168013 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 7 Orchard Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions