Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5223451 — Property damage
Decided 10 Sept 2025 · Published 10 Sept 2025 · Application 5223451
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Yi
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $7,744.20
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $7,744.20
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water rates to 03/04/2025 | $1,279.94 | Water rates to 03/04/2025 | |
| Cleaning, rubbish removal and net curtain replacement | $2,551.85 | ount its age and condition. With the adjusted amount, I order the tenant to pay $2,551.85 for cleaning and rubbish removal. | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $287.50 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Gate remote replacement | $160.00 | Gate remote replacement | |
| Repairs: Damage on walls | $460.00 | Repairs: Damage on walls | |
| Repairs: Bench chip repairs | $299.00 | Repairs: Bench chip repairs | |
| Repairs: Dining area wooden floors | $862.50 | Repairs: Dining area wooden floors | |
| Cleaning: Cooktop cleaning | $100.00 | Cleaning: Cooktop cleaning | |
| Repairs: Under-bench rubbish drawer | $1,716.41 | Repairs: Under-bench rubbish drawer | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $7,744.20 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $7,744.20 |
Claims and awards for application 5223451 — net $7,744.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Water rates to 03/04/2025
- Amount
- $1,279.94
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates to 03/04/2025
Cleaning, rubbish removal and net curtain replacement
- Amount
- $2,551.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- ount its age and condition. With the adjusted amount, I order the tenant to pay $2,551.85 for cleaning and rubbish removal.
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $287.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Gate remote replacement
- Amount
- $160.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Gate remote replacement
Repairs: Damage on walls
- Amount
- $460.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7,744.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 8 September 2025.
- The tenancy was from 11 December 2021 to 3 April 2025.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Bond payment to the landlord
- Between the end of the tenancy and this hearing, the bond of $3,200.00 had already been paid to the landlord to cover for the rent arrears of $2,735.71 and $424.29 of water rates arrears.
- Therefore, no order is made for the bond refund or the payment of rent arrears. Outstanding water rates arrears
- Even after $424.29 of the bond was paid towards the water arrears, there was still $1,279.94 left to be paid for outstanding water arrears.
- The tenant did not dispute this amount.
- Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord. Cleaning and repair claims
- 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- For damage claims, the 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 careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' 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.
- The Tribunal must also 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- The tenant did not dispute that the premises required cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy. The initial invoice was for $3,529.35 which included carpet wash, curtain wash, rubbish removal and exit cleaning. It also included $1,350.00 for net curtains replacement. However, I have recalculated the depreciated value for the net curtains down to $500.00 taking into account its age and condition. With the adjusted amount, I order the tenant to pay $2,551.85 for cleaning and rubbish removal.
- The tenant did not dispute the need for carpet stain removal and I award $287.50 as sought by the landlord.
- The tenant disputed the gate remote replacement cost stating that it was a pre- existing issue. The tenant said that both gate remotes stopped working after around seven months. When the remotes were returned, one had a dead battery and the other one was found to have been water damaged.
- Given that one of the two remotes was kept in the car, albeit in the glove box, I find that it is more likely than not to have been damaged due to user fault probably due to a drink being spilled on it at some stage. The tenant said that the buttons got stuck and did not work. The tenant cannot recall getting it wet at any stage but I do not find that it would have become water damaged naturally. I find that it was carelessly damaged. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $160.00 for one gate remote replacement.
- The tenant did not dispute that there was damage on the walls and that the tenant was liable. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $460.00 for repairs.
- The tenant did not dispute that the dining area wooden floor required sanding and recoating. The floor was damaged when the refrigerator was being moved. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $862.50 for repairs.
- The tenant also did not dispute that the under-bench rubbish drawer required to be replaced due to having become mouldy and rusted. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $1,716.41 for its replacement.
- The tenant disputed having caused the big crack in the benchtop and pit marks on the surface. I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused the damage. The crack could have happened when the cooktop was being replaced. I do not find that the tenant has caused the pit marks on the benchtop neither.
- However, I do find that the tenant has caused the chip on the benchtop edge. That damage accords with an item hitting the edge. I find that it was carelessly caused. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $299.00 for its repair.
- The landlord claimed $1,029.00 for the replacement of the ceramic cooktop. The landlord said that it was gouged and deeply scratched to the extent of it affecting the operation of the cooktop itself.
- The tenant disputed this claim strongly and provided evidence of the cooktop having been attended to by electricians twice during the tenancy for electrical issues.
- With depreciation, the replacement value of the cooktop would have been around $450.00. However, having seen the evidence provided, I do not find that the landlord has proven that the oven was damaged by the tenant to the point of needing replacement.
- However, I do find that the oven required extra cleaning due to it not being left reasonably clean.
- I order the tenant to pay the landlord $100.00 for the cooktop cleaning.
- The amounts ordered above are proved. Filing fee reimbursement
- Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s6, s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223451 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 5223451?
Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Area Wooden Floors: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Under-Bench Rubbish Drawer: $1,716.41 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,551.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,279.94 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223451?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223451?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.