What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198031 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 5198031?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198031?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11894588-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198031 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 5198031?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198031?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11894588-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Fantail Avenue, Carterton, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5198031 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198031 — net $127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for wall damage	$100.00	Compensation for wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$127.00
Bond	$1,785.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$127.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Jo Kelly & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Jordon Oakey $127.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,785.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jo Kelly & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Jordon Oakey: $127.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,658.00
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. The landlord’s agent attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 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.

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. 2 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 3 The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. 3 See section 40(1) (ca) RTA

CLEANING

There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7 Generally, tenants are not required to return the premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy. 8
The landlord paid $460 for the premises to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $250 of this amount as the landlord says the garage floor was dirty and the garage wall was marked. The pre-tenancy photographs show there was oil stains at the commencement of the tenancy and the exit report shows the premises is overall beyond reasonably clean and tidy. Accordingly, the claim for cleaning is dismissed.

GAS BOTTLE

Tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, and this includes gas. 9 The tenancy agreement records: “The Landlord shall provide 2 full gas bottles at the beginning of the tenancy and will pay the monthly gas bottle rental charges. The Tenant shall open a Supply Only account with the same gas supply company and is responsible for the charges incurred for the ongoing gas supply. The Tenant shall also leave two full gas bottles when vacating the property at the end of their tenancy.” 10 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 8 Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994 9 See s 39 of the RTA. 10 Clause 34 of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says the tenant was provided with two gas bottles at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy only one gas bottle was full. The tenant says he paid for the empty bottle to be replaced and provided an invoice for this. The landlord did not provide an invoice or receipt to confirm the landlord has paid for an additional gas bottle. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in support of the claim, and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 11 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 12
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 13
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). 14 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). 15 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 16
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. 17 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is 11 Sees 40 (2)(a) 12 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 13 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 14 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 15 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 16 See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA. 17 See section 49B (1) RTA. also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 18
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

BENCHTOP

The landlord claims $550 for the insurance excess to replace the damaged benchtop. The landlord says the benchtop was damaged by a long deep scratch caused, the landlord says, carelessly by the tenant.
The tenant says the damage is fair wear and tear and could not explain how it occurred.
The scratch was long and appears to have been the result of something sharp being dragged across it. I am satisfied the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord said that the insurance claim in relation to the benchtop had been approved, however the landlord has not provided written confirmation from the insurance company of acceptance of the claim. The landlord did not know how much had been approved in relation to the insurance claim to replace the benchtop. Neither a quote nor an invoice has been provided as evidence of the value to replace the bench top. The benchtop has not been replaced although I am told it will be.
In the absence of the invoice or quote I consider there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. Further in the circumstances where there has been a new tenancy since January 2025 and the work has not been completed, I consider there is a chance the work will not be completed; therefore, I am not satisfied the landlord has suffered a loss. The claim in respect of damage to the bench top is accordingly dismissed.

WALL DAMAGE

18 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord claims $316.25 for wall damage based on a quote. The landlord provided photographs of two holes in the walls.
The tenant says he was unaware of the damage and could not provide any explanation. He raised that the landlord only informed them of the damage two months after the end of the tenancy and challenged the landlord’s claim that this damage was caused during the tenancy.
A pre tenancy report was provided and I am satisfied this damage was likely caused during this tenancy.
Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs.
As noted above, a new tenancy commenced in January 2025. In this case the landlord also advised the wall has not been repaired but will be. However, in the circumstances where a new tenancy has commenced without the repairs being undertaken or necessary, I consider the landlord has not established loss to the level of the amount claimed.
However, I landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenants breach and in the circumstances, I consider $100 is appropriate to reasonable to reflect the breach. Bond
The Bond is to be paid out to the parties in accordance with the division set out in the order. Filing fee
As the landlord has been partly successful in the claim, I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and as the tenant has had substantial success in defending the landlord’s claim, I grant name suppression to the tenant. 19

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198031 — net $127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for wall damage	$100.00	Compensation for wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$127.00
Bond	$1,785.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$127.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Jo Kelly & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Jordon Oakey $127.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,785.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jo Kelly & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Jordon Oakey: $127.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,658.00
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. The landlord’s agent attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 likely. This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 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.

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. 2 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 3 The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. 3 See section 40(1) (ca) RTA

CLEANING

There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7 Generally, tenants are not required to return the premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy. 8
The landlord paid $460 for the premises to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $250 of this amount as the landlord says the garage floor was dirty and the garage wall was marked. The pre-tenancy photographs show there was oil stains at the commencement of the tenancy and the exit report shows the premises is overall beyond reasonably clean and tidy. Accordingly, the claim for cleaning is dismissed.

GAS BOTTLE

Tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, and this includes gas. 9 The tenancy agreement records: “The Landlord shall provide 2 full gas bottles at the beginning of the tenancy and will pay the monthly gas bottle rental charges. The Tenant shall open a Supply Only account with the same gas supply company and is responsible for the charges incurred for the ongoing gas supply. The Tenant shall also leave two full gas bottles when vacating the property at the end of their tenancy.” 10 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 8 Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994 9 See s 39 of the RTA. 10 Clause 34 of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says the tenant was provided with two gas bottles at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy only one gas bottle was full. The tenant says he paid for the empty bottle to be replaced and provided an invoice for this. The landlord did not provide an invoice or receipt to confirm the landlord has paid for an additional gas bottle. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in support of the claim, and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 11 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 12
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 13
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). 14 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). 15 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 16
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. 17 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is 11 Sees 40 (2)(a) 12 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 13 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 14 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 15 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 16 See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA. 17 See section 49B (1) RTA. also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 18
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

BENCHTOP

The landlord claims $550 for the insurance excess to replace the damaged benchtop. The landlord says the benchtop was damaged by a long deep scratch caused, the landlord says, carelessly by the tenant.
The tenant says the damage is fair wear and tear and could not explain how it occurred.
The scratch was long and appears to have been the result of something sharp being dragged across it. I am satisfied the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord said that the insurance claim in relation to the benchtop had been approved, however the landlord has not provided written confirmation from the insurance company of acceptance of the claim. The landlord did not know how much had been approved in relation to the insurance claim to replace the benchtop. Neither a quote nor an invoice has been provided as evidence of the value to replace the bench top. The benchtop has not been replaced although I am told it will be.
In the absence of the invoice or quote I consider there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. Further in the circumstances where there has been a new tenancy since January 2025 and the work has not been completed, I consider there is a chance the work will not be completed; therefore, I am not satisfied the landlord has suffered a loss. The claim in respect of damage to the bench top is accordingly dismissed.

WALL DAMAGE

18 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord claims $316.25 for wall damage based on a quote. The landlord provided photographs of two holes in the walls.
The tenant says he was unaware of the damage and could not provide any explanation. He raised that the landlord only informed them of the damage two months after the end of the tenancy and challenged the landlord’s claim that this damage was caused during the tenancy.
A pre tenancy report was provided and I am satisfied this damage was likely caused during this tenancy.
Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs.
As noted above, a new tenancy commenced in January 2025. In this case the landlord also advised the wall has not been repaired but will be. However, in the circumstances where a new tenancy has commenced without the repairs being undertaken or necessary, I consider the landlord has not established loss to the level of the amount claimed.
However, I landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenants breach and in the circumstances, I consider $100 is appropriate to reasonable to reflect the breach. Bond
The Bond is to be paid out to the parties in accordance with the division set out in the order. Filing fee
As the landlord has been partly successful in the claim, I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and as the tenant has had substantial success in defending the landlord’s claim, I grant name suppression to the tenant. 19

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198031 — Property damage at 12 Fantail Avenue, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198031 — Property damage at 12 Fantail Avenue, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

CLEANING

GAS BOTTLE

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

BENCHTOP

WALL DAMAGE

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?

CLEANING

GAS BOTTLE

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

BENCHTOP

WALL DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions