What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220402 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 5220402?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $28.75 awarded to landlord; Patch Painting: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace One Light Fitting: $37.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220402?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12122075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220402 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 5220402?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $28.75 awarded to landlord; Patch Painting: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace One Light Fitting: $37.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220402?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12122075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220402 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220402 — net $835.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: stove top	$28.75	Cleaning: stove top
Replace one light fitting	$37.37	Replace one light fitting
Cleaning: dining and kitchen ceilings	$69.00	Cleaning: dining and kitchen ceilings
Carpet Cleaning: spot cleaning stains x 2 rooms	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning: spot cleaning stains x 2 rooms
Patch painting	$600.00	Patch painting
Net award	$835.12
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$835.12

Order

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] to pay Keid Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management $835.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Keid Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management: $835.12 [The tenant/s]: $1,244.88
The tenant withdrew the claims relating to breach of maintenance obligations at the hearing.

Reasons

MH attended the hearing for both tenants and KB as representative for the landlords.
This was a six-year tenancy from February 2019 to February 2025 which ended after the tenants gave notice.
Both parties have filed applications to the Tribunal. At the hearing, the tenants withdrew their claim alleging breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
The matters in dispute relate to the amount the landlord seeks to claim for cleaning and repairs.
The tenants agree to pay the cost to replace one light fitting ($37.37) and spot clean the top of the stove ($28.75). They also agree to contribute to the landlord’s costs for repainting four patches they plastered after removing fixtures.
The landlord seeks $3,662.75 in compensation which is 50% of a quote to repaint eighteen walls and five doors it says have been left damaged beyond what is to be expected from fair wear and tear.

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

At the end of a tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property (assuming fair and reasonable use of the premises). There will inevitably be some deterioration of condition from everyday use.
If a tenant is liable, then the amount of compensation needs to be assessed.
Factors to be taken into account include:- a. that 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. b. what is reasonable in the circumstances. This principle comes from an English House of Lords decision called Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8. For example, if a kitchen bench has a small chip or burn, it may not be reasonable to replace the whole bench. Similarly, where there is a small stain on carpet it is not usually reasonable to replace the carpet in the whole room. Sometimes it can be successfully patched. c. if a claim for loss is based on quotes rather than actual costs, then it is relevant to ask whether the cost will be incurred. Decisions
Cleaning ceilings in dining room, kitchen, entryway, bedroom 2: after considering the landlord’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and the oral evidence from both parties, my decision is that the dining and kitchen ceilings were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy due mainly to a more than reasonable number of fly spots and other marks. I find the entryway ceiling to be reasonably clean. I agree that the bedroom 2 ceiling was discoloured (probably from mould) but consider this to be wear and tear occurring because the room is on the south side of the house with small windows. I award half of the cleaning cost which is $69.00.
Carpet cleaning or stain removal: the landlord proved there were three to five small, coloured (pink and blue) stains left on the carpet in each of two bedrooms at the end of the tenancy. The tenants had cleaned the carpets throughout the house with a soft furnishings cleaning appliance that they own but these marks did not fully come out. I agree the stains mean the carpet is not reasonably clean. The landlord supplied a quote for $345.00 to clean carpets throughout the house and to remove the stains. The property has been relet and the work has not been done. I have decided to award $100.00 towards the reasonable cost of stain removal. I do not award the full amount of the quote because the stains are small, the work has not been done and may not be done, and it is preferable to finalise the matter now.
Painting of plastered areas on 4 walls and one door: the tenants agree that at the end of the tenancy they left four plastered patches on walls after removing fixtures in the master bedroom, living room, above the hallway door, and in the laundry, and one plaster patch on the bottom of one door (this was damaged part-way through the tenancy). I refer to these as “tenant patches” and address the question of compensation below.
Preparation and painting of 14 walls: the landlord claims the tenants have damaged the paint finish in various places to an extent that is more than wear and tear. The tenants say any damage is from normal living. a. Bedroom 1: two “flower” decals left on two walls. The tenants agree they left these stickers on the walls but point out that there is a very large “batman” decal on another wall in this room. They say the previous owner told them they could stick the flowers on the wall given the existing large decal. I accept the tenants’ oral evidence and find it is unreasonable to expect them to remove the stickers when there is an existing very large sticker on a third wall. b. Bedroom 2: scuff marks on the wall under the window where the bed was situated (between light fittings). I find these are wear and tear as a bed is a normal use. The photo of what the landlord says is a small plaster or paint mark on a second wall is not clear enough for me to assess. c. Bedroom 3 (master): this is a tenant patch. d. Dining/living: two tenant patches on one wall are accepted. The landlord’s photos do not prove any other wall is damaged beyond fair wear and tear. e. Hallway: two tenant patches above the door on one wall are accepted. The tenant also patched a hole from the door handle. The landlord’s photos do not prove any other wall is damaged beyond fair wear and tear. f. Toilet: the landlord withdrew this claim in the hearing. g. Kitchen: scrape marks look to be from where the kitchen rubbish bin was located and one small scrape near the breakfast bar. I find this is normal wear and tear in the context of a 6-year tenancy and as a bin is a normal use. h. Laundry: tenant patch is accepted.
Preparation and painting of 5 doors: the landlord supplied entry and exit photos showing easily visible patches where paint has flaked off or is scratched. I describe these below. a. Bedroom 1, door 1 and 2: a large number of small flakes and scrapes across entry door and wardrobe door. b. Bedroom 3 (master): this is a tenant patch and is accepted. c. Bedroom 4 door 1: larger patches of flaked paint (revealing wood beneath) and some smaller flakes/scratches. The paint has also come off along some door edges where they contact the door frame. d. Bedroom 4 door 2: smaller flakes on mostly one door. e. Hallway door: the top layer of paint as worn off in one large patch to reveal older paint underneath and a smaller arear near the bottom of the door.
There was discussion in the hearing about the doors. The tenant said that many of the doors in the older part of the house looked to have been repainted with one coat of “undercoat” and that this had chipped off over time. He supplied some photographs during the hearing which more clearly show this: a white paint has been applied over the top of an apricot or cream colour on some of the doors. The white paint that has been applied to the door into bedroom 1 is clearly unfinished as the edges are rough and spill over onto the wall. Both parties agreed the doors in bedroom 3 are not affected in the same way. This room is a later extension to the house with what look to be modern doors probably with a surface designed for painting (eg the wardrobe sliding door 1) rather than the older wooden veneer doors.
My decision is that the tenant has shown that the damage to the paint surface on the doors is most probably due to the unsuitable nature of the paint rather than any excessive or careless use. This is supported by the layers of paint visible, the wear along door edges, and the fact that the doors in bedroom 3 have worn quite differently from the rest of the house. Compensation for repainting of tenant patches:
My decisions above mean that the tenants are not liable to compensate the landlord except for the four walls they accept as tenant patches.
I award $600.00 as an assessment of a reasonable cost to patch paint the four areas. This is arguably generous given that the landlord has not had any work done yet and the house may be due to be fully repainted soon anyway as part of normal maintenance. Filing fee and suppression of names
Both parties have paid filing fees and I make no order about those.
Both parties seek suppression of names from the published order. The tenants have successfully defended most of the landlord claims, so I suppress their names. The landlord was not substantially successful so I decline suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220402 — net $835.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: stove top	$28.75	Cleaning: stove top
Replace one light fitting	$37.37	Replace one light fitting
Cleaning: dining and kitchen ceilings	$69.00	Cleaning: dining and kitchen ceilings
Carpet Cleaning: spot cleaning stains x 2 rooms	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning: spot cleaning stains x 2 rooms
Patch painting	$600.00	Patch painting
Net award	$835.12
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$835.12

Order

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] to pay Keid Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management $835.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Keid Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management: $835.12 [The tenant/s]: $1,244.88
The tenant withdrew the claims relating to breach of maintenance obligations at the hearing.

Reasons

MH attended the hearing for both tenants and KB as representative for the landlords.
This was a six-year tenancy from February 2019 to February 2025 which ended after the tenants gave notice.
Both parties have filed applications to the Tribunal. At the hearing, the tenants withdrew their claim alleging breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
The matters in dispute relate to the amount the landlord seeks to claim for cleaning and repairs.
The tenants agree to pay the cost to replace one light fitting ($37.37) and spot clean the top of the stove ($28.75). They also agree to contribute to the landlord’s costs for repainting four patches they plastered after removing fixtures.
The landlord seeks $3,662.75 in compensation which is 50% of a quote to repaint eighteen walls and five doors it says have been left damaged beyond what is to be expected from fair wear and tear.

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

At the end of a tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property (assuming fair and reasonable use of the premises). There will inevitably be some deterioration of condition from everyday use.
If a tenant is liable, then the amount of compensation needs to be assessed.
Factors to be taken into account include:- a. that 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. b. what is reasonable in the circumstances. This principle comes from an English House of Lords decision called Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8. For example, if a kitchen bench has a small chip or burn, it may not be reasonable to replace the whole bench. Similarly, where there is a small stain on carpet it is not usually reasonable to replace the carpet in the whole room. Sometimes it can be successfully patched. c. if a claim for loss is based on quotes rather than actual costs, then it is relevant to ask whether the cost will be incurred. Decisions
Cleaning ceilings in dining room, kitchen, entryway, bedroom 2: after considering the landlord’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and the oral evidence from both parties, my decision is that the dining and kitchen ceilings were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy due mainly to a more than reasonable number of fly spots and other marks. I find the entryway ceiling to be reasonably clean. I agree that the bedroom 2 ceiling was discoloured (probably from mould) but consider this to be wear and tear occurring because the room is on the south side of the house with small windows. I award half of the cleaning cost which is $69.00.
Carpet cleaning or stain removal: the landlord proved there were three to five small, coloured (pink and blue) stains left on the carpet in each of two bedrooms at the end of the tenancy. The tenants had cleaned the carpets throughout the house with a soft furnishings cleaning appliance that they own but these marks did not fully come out. I agree the stains mean the carpet is not reasonably clean. The landlord supplied a quote for $345.00 to clean carpets throughout the house and to remove the stains. The property has been relet and the work has not been done. I have decided to award $100.00 towards the reasonable cost of stain removal. I do not award the full amount of the quote because the stains are small, the work has not been done and may not be done, and it is preferable to finalise the matter now.
Painting of plastered areas on 4 walls and one door: the tenants agree that at the end of the tenancy they left four plastered patches on walls after removing fixtures in the master bedroom, living room, above the hallway door, and in the laundry, and one plaster patch on the bottom of one door (this was damaged part-way through the tenancy). I refer to these as “tenant patches” and address the question of compensation below.
Preparation and painting of 14 walls: the landlord claims the tenants have damaged the paint finish in various places to an extent that is more than wear and tear. The tenants say any damage is from normal living. a. Bedroom 1: two “flower” decals left on two walls. The tenants agree they left these stickers on the walls but point out that there is a very large “batman” decal on another wall in this room. They say the previous owner told them they could stick the flowers on the wall given the existing large decal. I accept the tenants’ oral evidence and find it is unreasonable to expect them to remove the stickers when there is an existing very large sticker on a third wall. b. Bedroom 2: scuff marks on the wall under the window where the bed was situated (between light fittings). I find these are wear and tear as a bed is a normal use. The photo of what the landlord says is a small plaster or paint mark on a second wall is not clear enough for me to assess. c. Bedroom 3 (master): this is a tenant patch. d. Dining/living: two tenant patches on one wall are accepted. The landlord’s photos do not prove any other wall is damaged beyond fair wear and tear. e. Hallway: two tenant patches above the door on one wall are accepted. The tenant also patched a hole from the door handle. The landlord’s photos do not prove any other wall is damaged beyond fair wear and tear. f. Toilet: the landlord withdrew this claim in the hearing. g. Kitchen: scrape marks look to be from where the kitchen rubbish bin was located and one small scrape near the breakfast bar. I find this is normal wear and tear in the context of a 6-year tenancy and as a bin is a normal use. h. Laundry: tenant patch is accepted.
Preparation and painting of 5 doors: the landlord supplied entry and exit photos showing easily visible patches where paint has flaked off or is scratched. I describe these below. a. Bedroom 1, door 1 and 2: a large number of small flakes and scrapes across entry door and wardrobe door. b. Bedroom 3 (master): this is a tenant patch and is accepted. c. Bedroom 4 door 1: larger patches of flaked paint (revealing wood beneath) and some smaller flakes/scratches. The paint has also come off along some door edges where they contact the door frame. d. Bedroom 4 door 2: smaller flakes on mostly one door. e. Hallway door: the top layer of paint as worn off in one large patch to reveal older paint underneath and a smaller arear near the bottom of the door.
There was discussion in the hearing about the doors. The tenant said that many of the doors in the older part of the house looked to have been repainted with one coat of “undercoat” and that this had chipped off over time. He supplied some photographs during the hearing which more clearly show this: a white paint has been applied over the top of an apricot or cream colour on some of the doors. The white paint that has been applied to the door into bedroom 1 is clearly unfinished as the edges are rough and spill over onto the wall. Both parties agreed the doors in bedroom 3 are not affected in the same way. This room is a later extension to the house with what look to be modern doors probably with a surface designed for painting (eg the wardrobe sliding door 1) rather than the older wooden veneer doors.
My decision is that the tenant has shown that the damage to the paint surface on the doors is most probably due to the unsuitable nature of the paint rather than any excessive or careless use. This is supported by the layers of paint visible, the wear along door edges, and the fact that the doors in bedroom 3 have worn quite differently from the rest of the house. Compensation for repainting of tenant patches:
My decisions above mean that the tenants are not liable to compensate the landlord except for the four walls they accept as tenant patches.
I award $600.00 as an assessment of a reasonable cost to patch paint the four areas. This is arguably generous given that the landlord has not had any work done yet and the house may be due to be fully repainted soon anyway as part of normal maintenance. Filing fee and suppression of names
Both parties have paid filing fees and I make no order about those.
Both parties seek suppression of names from the published order. The tenants have successfully defended most of the landlord claims, so I suppress their names. The landlord was not substantially successful so I decline suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220402 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220402 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions