What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214091 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 5214091?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $663.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cutlery Tray: $22.90 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,091.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214091?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12809482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214091 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 5214091?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $663.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cutlery Tray: $22.90 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,091.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214091?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12809482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5214091 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214091 — net $5,285.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 October 2025	$2,500.00	Rent arrears to 27 October 2025
Cleaning: including windows	$460.00	Cleaning: including windows
Carpet Cleaning	$495.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement - insurance excesses	$663.00	Carpet replacement - insurance excesses
Replace cutlery tray	$22.90	Replace cutlery tray
Repairs to walls and doors	$3,091.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,285.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,285.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and Tenant’s’ names, the address of the tenancy and any identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,418.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,973.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and [Tenant 1] attended the hearing. [Tenant 2] did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy premises is two bedroomed unit situated on part of the landlord’s farm. The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy for one year from 25 October 2024 to 25 October 2025.
On 26 February 2025 [Tenant 1] served a Notice of Withdrawal on the landlord under section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the grounds of family violence. The notice was effective from 28 February 2025.
[Tenant 2] remained as the sole tenant after [Tenant 1]’s withdrawal until 25 March 2025 when the Tribunal terminated the tenancy due to abandonment and rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent ?

The landlord claims $2,500.00 in rent arrears to and including 27 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to this date. The Tribunal has not previously made any order for rent arrears for this period.

Was the premises left in a clean and tidy condition?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(2)(iii) RTA.
The landlord claims $600.00 for cleaning, $120.00 for window cleaning and $495.00 for carpet cleaning. The claim for carpet cleaning is considered along with the claim for carpet replacement below.
[Tenant 1] maintains the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy when she vacated the premises on 28 February. She says she had left the premises several weeks before serving her Notice to Withdraw, but went back to clean the premises and remove all goods/belongings before her notice withdrawing from the tenancy took effect. [Tenant 1] said there was no sign that [Tenant 2] was living at the premises on 28 February. [Tenant 1] removed all goods/belongings/rubbish in the premises. She locked the premises when she left and put the only key the landlord had provided at the start of the tenancy on the bench inside.
[Tenant 1]’s view is that too much time passed between her withdrawal on 28 February and the landlord taking possession on 26 March 2025 for the landlord to be successful in its claim. [Tenant 1] submitted anyone could have entered the property and caused the condition shown in the landlord’s photos.
In considering the submissions and evidence presented I find that the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in pristine condition but is required to leave premises to the standard an average bystander would consider reasonable. It is anticipated that a landlord is likely to carry out further cleaning after the end of a tenancy so they can present the property to prospective tenants in an immaculate state.
The landlord’s photographs show the condition the premises was in on 26 March 2025. From the evidence in front of me I am satisfied this was the same condition the premises was in when [Tenant 1] left the premises on 28 February 2025.
[Tenant 1]’s video, taken on 28 February after she had removed all goods and belongings in the property and had cleaned the property, does not show the detail of the cleaning needed, as is established by the landlord’s photos. The video is taken from a further away distance than the photographs.
The landlords claim $600.00 for cleaning, however I am not convinced by the evidence, including the photographs presented, that the premises were left in such a condition that warrants compensation of $600.00 to bring it to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Nonetheless I find the condition it was left in required further cleaning, including the oven, the shower trap, vanity basin, drawer, floor where the washing machine had been and fly dirt off ceilings and light fittings. I find that $400.00 is reasonable compensation to bring the premises to the standard required by the RTA.
The invoice for the windows includes cleaning the inside and the outside of the windows. The tenants are not liable for cleaning the outside of the windows unless they have caused the needed for the cleaning 1 . The landlord has provided one photo of the sliding door which shows the glass on the interior and exterior is dirty. I find this is likely to be caused by the dogs at the premises.
I consider it reasonable that the tenants pay $60.00 for cleaning windows.

Are the tenants liable to pay for a replacement cutlery insert?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant left all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. 1 Cleaning the exterior of the premises including windows is a landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord found the cutlery drawer insert in the paddock next to the premises. The landlord claims $22.90 for a new insert.
I find the cutlery insert was removed from the property before or on 28 February 2025. In making this finding I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, being the civil onus of proof, that no one other than the landlord entered the premises between 28 February and 26 March. The landlord confirmed they entered on 7 March 2027. I do not find the landlord removed the cutlery insert.
I find the tenants are liable for the cost to replace the insert.

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.
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.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy.

Did the carpet require cleaning and replacing in two rooms?

The carpet was four months old at the start of the tenancy. The landlord claims the cost of cleaning the carpet ($495.00) throughout the premises and the insurance excess it has paid for replacing the carpet in the living room/hall and the master bedroom ($663.00).
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet needed to be replaced as it as smelled of dog urine, was stained and had burn marks. The landlord believed at least some of the stains were caused by pet faeces.
After the carpets were cleaned the living/hall and the master bedroom continued to smell and were stained. The landlord’s insurer replaced the carpet in these rooms. The landlord’s excess is $500 per room. The landlord’s insurer reduced the excess the landlord had to pay by $337.00 to $663.00, as the landlord had the carpet cleaned in those rooms. The insurer apportioned the cost of cleaning the carpet on the basis of $238.00 for the living/hallway and $99 for the master bedroom.
[Tenant 1] disputes her dogs peed or pooped inside. She says there was no evidence that was the case when she was there on 28 February or on the days before that. She says she had a friend who is a commercial carpet cleaner clean the carpets before she left.
In considering the evidence, including the photos from the landlord and the video from [Tenant 1], I am satisfied that the carpets were in the same condition on 26 March that they were in on 28 February when [Tenant 1] locked the house. I find the carpets were stained and smelled of pet urine. I find the damage is intentional due to the number of stains, the burns and the strong urine smell described by the landlord. That is, I find the damage has not occurred from a one off event but has occurred as the dogs have likely peed and or pooped on the carpet a number of times, with a certainty that the carpets would be damaged.
Accordingly, the amount the landlord claims is awarded. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

Were walls and doors damaged?

There were a number of holes in walls and doors caused during the tenancy. Some attempt was made to fix some of the damage. [Tenant 1] accepts the damage was caused prior to 28 February 2025.
I find the cost claimed is the reasonable cost to rectify the damage ($3,091.20). I note that the landlord has painted all areas that were damaged and has not claimed this cost. Other matters
In joint tenancies, such as this tenancy, all tenants remain jointly and severally liable until they are formally released or removed from the tenancy agreement by way of written variation or lawful withdrawal.
Section 56B RTA allows tenants affected by family violence to withdraw from a tenancy. The tenant remains liable for any breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement, including rent arrears, damage to the premises and the condition of the premises, until the effective date of their withdrawal.
Reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded to the landlord as it has been successful in its claim.
I am required by s 95A(1A) of the RTA to order suppression of the parties’ named, the address of the tenancy and any identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214091 — net $5,285.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 October 2025	$2,500.00	Rent arrears to 27 October 2025
Cleaning: including windows	$460.00	Cleaning: including windows
Carpet Cleaning	$495.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement - insurance excesses	$663.00	Carpet replacement - insurance excesses
Replace cutlery tray	$22.90	Replace cutlery tray
Repairs to walls and doors	$3,091.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,285.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,285.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and Tenant’s’ names, the address of the tenancy and any identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,418.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,973.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and [Tenant 1] attended the hearing. [Tenant 2] did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy premises is two bedroomed unit situated on part of the landlord’s farm. The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy for one year from 25 October 2024 to 25 October 2025.
On 26 February 2025 [Tenant 1] served a Notice of Withdrawal on the landlord under section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the grounds of family violence. The notice was effective from 28 February 2025.
[Tenant 2] remained as the sole tenant after [Tenant 1]’s withdrawal until 25 March 2025 when the Tribunal terminated the tenancy due to abandonment and rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent ?

The landlord claims $2,500.00 in rent arrears to and including 27 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to this date. The Tribunal has not previously made any order for rent arrears for this period.

Was the premises left in a clean and tidy condition?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(2)(iii) RTA.
The landlord claims $600.00 for cleaning, $120.00 for window cleaning and $495.00 for carpet cleaning. The claim for carpet cleaning is considered along with the claim for carpet replacement below.
[Tenant 1] maintains the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy when she vacated the premises on 28 February. She says she had left the premises several weeks before serving her Notice to Withdraw, but went back to clean the premises and remove all goods/belongings before her notice withdrawing from the tenancy took effect. [Tenant 1] said there was no sign that [Tenant 2] was living at the premises on 28 February. [Tenant 1] removed all goods/belongings/rubbish in the premises. She locked the premises when she left and put the only key the landlord had provided at the start of the tenancy on the bench inside.
[Tenant 1]’s view is that too much time passed between her withdrawal on 28 February and the landlord taking possession on 26 March 2025 for the landlord to be successful in its claim. [Tenant 1] submitted anyone could have entered the property and caused the condition shown in the landlord’s photos.
In considering the submissions and evidence presented I find that the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in pristine condition but is required to leave premises to the standard an average bystander would consider reasonable. It is anticipated that a landlord is likely to carry out further cleaning after the end of a tenancy so they can present the property to prospective tenants in an immaculate state.
The landlord’s photographs show the condition the premises was in on 26 March 2025. From the evidence in front of me I am satisfied this was the same condition the premises was in when [Tenant 1] left the premises on 28 February 2025.
[Tenant 1]’s video, taken on 28 February after she had removed all goods and belongings in the property and had cleaned the property, does not show the detail of the cleaning needed, as is established by the landlord’s photos. The video is taken from a further away distance than the photographs.
The landlords claim $600.00 for cleaning, however I am not convinced by the evidence, including the photographs presented, that the premises were left in such a condition that warrants compensation of $600.00 to bring it to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Nonetheless I find the condition it was left in required further cleaning, including the oven, the shower trap, vanity basin, drawer, floor where the washing machine had been and fly dirt off ceilings and light fittings. I find that $400.00 is reasonable compensation to bring the premises to the standard required by the RTA.
The invoice for the windows includes cleaning the inside and the outside of the windows. The tenants are not liable for cleaning the outside of the windows unless they have caused the needed for the cleaning 1 . The landlord has provided one photo of the sliding door which shows the glass on the interior and exterior is dirty. I find this is likely to be caused by the dogs at the premises.
I consider it reasonable that the tenants pay $60.00 for cleaning windows.

Are the tenants liable to pay for a replacement cutlery insert?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant left all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. 1 Cleaning the exterior of the premises including windows is a landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord found the cutlery drawer insert in the paddock next to the premises. The landlord claims $22.90 for a new insert.
I find the cutlery insert was removed from the property before or on 28 February 2025. In making this finding I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, being the civil onus of proof, that no one other than the landlord entered the premises between 28 February and 26 March. The landlord confirmed they entered on 7 March 2027. I do not find the landlord removed the cutlery insert.
I find the tenants are liable for the cost to replace the insert.

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.
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.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy.

Did the carpet require cleaning and replacing in two rooms?

The carpet was four months old at the start of the tenancy. The landlord claims the cost of cleaning the carpet ($495.00) throughout the premises and the insurance excess it has paid for replacing the carpet in the living room/hall and the master bedroom ($663.00).
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet needed to be replaced as it as smelled of dog urine, was stained and had burn marks. The landlord believed at least some of the stains were caused by pet faeces.
After the carpets were cleaned the living/hall and the master bedroom continued to smell and were stained. The landlord’s insurer replaced the carpet in these rooms. The landlord’s excess is $500 per room. The landlord’s insurer reduced the excess the landlord had to pay by $337.00 to $663.00, as the landlord had the carpet cleaned in those rooms. The insurer apportioned the cost of cleaning the carpet on the basis of $238.00 for the living/hallway and $99 for the master bedroom.
[Tenant 1] disputes her dogs peed or pooped inside. She says there was no evidence that was the case when she was there on 28 February or on the days before that. She says she had a friend who is a commercial carpet cleaner clean the carpets before she left.
In considering the evidence, including the photos from the landlord and the video from [Tenant 1], I am satisfied that the carpets were in the same condition on 26 March that they were in on 28 February when [Tenant 1] locked the house. I find the carpets were stained and smelled of pet urine. I find the damage is intentional due to the number of stains, the burns and the strong urine smell described by the landlord. That is, I find the damage has not occurred from a one off event but has occurred as the dogs have likely peed and or pooped on the carpet a number of times, with a certainty that the carpets would be damaged.
Accordingly, the amount the landlord claims is awarded. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

Were walls and doors damaged?

There were a number of holes in walls and doors caused during the tenancy. Some attempt was made to fix some of the damage. [Tenant 1] accepts the damage was caused prior to 28 February 2025.
I find the cost claimed is the reasonable cost to rectify the damage ($3,091.20). I note that the landlord has painted all areas that were damaged and has not claimed this cost. Other matters
In joint tenancies, such as this tenancy, all tenants remain jointly and severally liable until they are formally released or removed from the tenancy agreement by way of written variation or lawful withdrawal.
Section 56B RTA allows tenants affected by family violence to withdraw from a tenancy. The tenant remains liable for any breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement, including rent arrears, damage to the premises and the condition of the premises, until the effective date of their withdrawal.
Reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded to the landlord as it has been successful in its claim.
I am required by s 95A(1A) of the RTA to order suppression of the parties’ named, the address of the tenancy and any identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214091 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214091 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

Was the premises left in a clean and tidy condition?

Are the tenants liable to pay for a replacement cutlery insert?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the carpet require cleaning and replacing in two rooms?

Were walls and doors damaged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

Was the premises left in a clean and tidy condition?

Are the tenants liable to pay for a replacement cutlery insert?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the carpet require cleaning and replacing in two rooms?

Were walls and doors damaged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions