What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249813 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as agent for Omer

How much money was awarded in case 5249813?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $70.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249813?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12415065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249813 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as agent for Omer

How much money was awarded in case 5249813?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $70.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249813?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12415065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5249813 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5249813 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249813 — net $2,070.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 28 April 2025	$70.97	Water rates to 28 April 2025
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$1,900.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$2,070.97
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,070.97

Claims and awards for application 5249813 — net $2,070.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates to 28 April 2025

Amount: $70.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates to 28 April 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $1,900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Net award

Landlord $2,070.97

Bond

Landlord $2,780.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,070.97

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as agent for Omer Maqsood $2,070.97 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as agent for Omer Maqsood: $2,070.97 [The tenant/s]: $709.03

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a cross application for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $70.97 at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord says that after the tenancy, some cleaning was required. This included cleaning to skirting boards, drawers within cupboards, vacuuming and floor cleaning. They claim $220.00 for this cleaning.
The tenant says that they did clean the property and believed that it was left reasonably clean and tidy.
I have reviewed the photographs and evidence provided by the landlord and consider that although the tenant has cleaned the property, some further minor cleaning was required to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. I note that the standard a tenant must leave the property is not the same as the standard required for sale or settlement.
I have therefore ordered a reduced amount of $100.00 to reflect this.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims for the cost to paint the walls due to patches on paint on the walls and some marks throughout. The landlord says that the tenant had patched or painted the walls in several locations, the paint colour used was different to the wall colour, and so these walls had to be completely painted to match. The quote shows that there are repairs and touch-up painting required throughout the house, and painting in areas where there are patches on the walls.
The tenant says that any wall damage wasn’t intentional and that none of the issues had ever been raised in routine inspections during the tenancy. The tenant says that they weren’t given the opportunity to seek alternative or cheaper options for the repairs and queried the independence of the company used to carry out the repair work.
I have reviewed the evidence and find that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider that where the tenant has painted the walls using a different colour, that these walls required painting. However, some marks and scuffs on walls would be expected after a tenancy of this length, and although the quote doesn’t provide a breakdown, I have reduced the amount awarded to reflect this fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant also queried the notice to terminate the tenancy in their application and whether this had been done correctly. However, at the time of the hearing, nothing specific was sought in respect of this claim and so I have not considered this further.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party and these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenant has requested name suppression and as they have had some success in challenging the claims against them, this is ordered. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 16 September 2025

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249813 — net $2,070.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 28 April 2025	$70.97	Water rates to 28 April 2025
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$1,900.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$2,070.97
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,070.97

Claims and awards for application 5249813 — net $2,070.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates to 28 April 2025

Amount: $70.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates to 28 April 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $1,900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Net award

Landlord $2,070.97

Bond

Landlord $2,780.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,070.97

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as agent for Omer Maqsood $2,070.97 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as agent for Omer Maqsood: $2,070.97 [The tenant/s]: $709.03

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a cross application for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $70.97 at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord says that after the tenancy, some cleaning was required. This included cleaning to skirting boards, drawers within cupboards, vacuuming and floor cleaning. They claim $220.00 for this cleaning.
The tenant says that they did clean the property and believed that it was left reasonably clean and tidy.
I have reviewed the photographs and evidence provided by the landlord and consider that although the tenant has cleaned the property, some further minor cleaning was required to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. I note that the standard a tenant must leave the property is not the same as the standard required for sale or settlement.
I have therefore ordered a reduced amount of $100.00 to reflect this.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims for the cost to paint the walls due to patches on paint on the walls and some marks throughout. The landlord says that the tenant had patched or painted the walls in several locations, the paint colour used was different to the wall colour, and so these walls had to be completely painted to match. The quote shows that there are repairs and touch-up painting required throughout the house, and painting in areas where there are patches on the walls.
The tenant says that any wall damage wasn’t intentional and that none of the issues had ever been raised in routine inspections during the tenancy. The tenant says that they weren’t given the opportunity to seek alternative or cheaper options for the repairs and queried the independence of the company used to carry out the repair work.
I have reviewed the evidence and find that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider that where the tenant has painted the walls using a different colour, that these walls required painting. However, some marks and scuffs on walls would be expected after a tenancy of this length, and although the quote doesn’t provide a breakdown, I have reduced the amount awarded to reflect this fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant also queried the notice to terminate the tenancy in their application and whether this had been done correctly. However, at the time of the hearing, nothing specific was sought in respect of this claim and so I have not considered this further.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party and these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenant has requested name suppression and as they have had some success in challenging the claims against them, this is ordered. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 16 September 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249813 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249813 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions