How much money was awarded in case 5202891?

Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12050404-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5202891?

Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12050404-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202891 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5202891 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 5202891 — net $291.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$30.00	2020. Some of the photos provided show furniture damage more appropriately considered wear and tear.
Repairs - wall	$261.85	Repairs - wall
Net award	$291.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$291.85

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited - As Agent For Priteshma Chandra And Vikash Mudaliar $291.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Cheng Lang appeared on behalf of all tenants.

The tenants had applied for the return of their bond.

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

The landlord claimed $793.50 for repainting of walls, $230.00 for repainting the front door, $30.00 for cleaning/removal of residual glue or such from the front door, and $295.00 for the replacement of blinds.

The bond has already been released to the tenants.

The tenancy had a number of tenant changes during its life. The tenant who appeared was not there at commencement.

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.

The following damage was claimed as caused during the tenancy: a. Wall paint finish – two walls in the lounge, one wall in bedroom 3 and one wall in the garage. The landlord claimed the quote for yet to be carried out repainting of these areas, as well as some other areas not claimed. The damage was established by a series of photos. The areas tend to show previous repair, with the legacy issue being the mismatch in the finish compared to the surrounding areas of that wall. There has been a new tenancy since January 2025 with no repainting to date. I was told the owner is awaiting this hearing to conclude before doing this. While I accept some damage is more than wear and tear, I have three concerns regarding the claimed loss. The first is the failure to remedy to date, the second is relying on an historic quote for more areas than claimed or evidenced, the third is the age and condition of the painted walls at the end of the tenancy, and as at today. The quote is not as good as an invoice for establishing a loss. I have accepted the quoted amount at 66% of it ($523.71) - reflecting the other areas included in that quote. I have applied a 50% depreciation to that reduced amount given the prior wear and tear as noted in the master bedroom reflecting the multiple occupancies since the home was built in 2020. Some of the photos provided show furniture damage more appropriately considered wear and tear. b. Front door. During the first phase of the tenancy a fixture was adhesively attached to the top of the front door. It was removed later during the tenancy. After the tenancy ended the landlord claimed for two related costs. The first was a $30.00 cleaning invoice to remove legacy adhesive visible in approximately 6 attachment points. This damage is proven and the cost claimed is awarded. The second claim is for a yet to be incurred repainting cost (quote of $230.00) for the front door due to scratches near the adhesive remains – the claim being that they occurred when the fixture was removed. The second claim was presented later (after the exit inspection) but I accept it more than likely the scratches existed prior to the new tenancy that followed this one. However, I am not convinced that the damage is such that a repair is required. The failure to attend to it before now tends to support that. Unlikely an internal repaint, the front door could be repainted without real impact on the current tenants. Given the limited damage and failure to establish a loss, I do not make any order for the second claim. Even if so minded, I would have some concerns regarding the quoted tasks and cost versus the minor damage shown. c. Blind replacement. The landlord sought $295.00 for the replacement of a blind. One photo was provided but it failed to show any visible damage. I was told the hole was small. I have no evidence of tenant liability here and dismiss this claim.

The costs awarded are damage that is more than fair wear and tear 1 , and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in 1 “Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation. proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenant requested suppression in its application. A prior offer by the tenant to settle the dispute was made but rejected. It was for more than what has been determined here. As the tenants have been substantially successful, suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5202891 — net $291.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$30.00	2020. Some of the photos provided show furniture damage more appropriately considered wear and tear.
Repairs - wall	$261.85	Repairs - wall
Net award	$291.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$291.85

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited - As Agent For Priteshma Chandra And Vikash Mudaliar $291.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Cheng Lang appeared on behalf of all tenants.

The tenants had applied for the return of their bond.

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

The bond has already been released to the tenants.

The tenancy had a number of tenant changes during its life. The tenant who appeared was not there at commencement.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The costs awarded are damage that is more than fair wear and tear 1 , and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202891 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202891 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions