Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5262599 — Property damage at 79 Kahotea Drive, Motuoapa, Motuoapa 3382
Decided 12 Jul 2025 · Published 12 Jul 2025 · Application 5262599
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,587.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,587.00 [The tenant/s]: $133.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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.
- The tenancy agreement said that the tenant was not to smoke inside. The tenant smoked in the bedroom. The landlord provided photographs that confirmed a yellow stain consistent with nicotine was present at the end of the tenancy, under the windows and on the walls. She said that cleaning did not remove the stains or odour and she painted the room, using a product to remove the odour first. She also had the carpet replaced at a cost of $1,300. The landlord considers $500 would be a fair amount for the tenant to contribute, noting that this is for the cost of replacing the carpet only as she has removed and disposed of the old carpet. I have allowed $350 as a reasonable amount for the tenant to pay. This award takes account of the age and condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The tenant has breached the tenancy agreement. The landlord has claimed $196.74 as the cost of materials she purchased to remedy this breach/clean and deodorise the walls. This amount is considered reasonable and awarded in full.
- The additional cleaning claim of $250 for general cleaning is reduced to $50. A tenant is only required to leave a property “reasonably” clean and tidy. This standard does not mean every mark must be removed from every surface, including windows and ceilings. It does not generally require a tenant to remove and clean behind the oven and fridge. The longer a tenancy runs the more likely it is that there will be an element of “maintenance” cleaning that a reasonable landlord will attend to at the end.
- The tenant maintains that she did leave the property in a reasonable condition and the photographs and invoice provided support a finding that the cleaning claimed is almost all for the “additional extras’ that mean the property is returned in a spotless condition that exceeds the required standard. The cost claimed is therefore a landlord responsibility except for $50.
- The claim for $30 for lawn mowing is agreed and confirmed.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for 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.
- The carpets in the lounge/dining area were stained, likely by spilled tea and coffee and the tenant had a pet that “had accidents” likely damaging the underlay. There were additional areas of carpet damaged by candle wax when a candle the tenant had lit exploded causing wax splatters.
- The landlord has an insurance excess of $550. The carpet was replaced as the odours/stains and damaged areas could not be repaired or removed with cleaning. The landlord’s claim for the excess is approved. While I am mindful that the carpet was 10 years old, it was also in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy and only needed to be replaced because of the damage. The underlay needed to be lifted and replaced to repair the damage caused by the urine and to remove the odour.
- The amount awarded is considered reasonable compensation for those repair costs.
- I have discounted the claim of the full insurance excess to replace the vinyl in the bathroom. The vinyl was 12 years old. It was discoloured/stained by a wicker laundry basket the tenant placed on an area of it. The landlord’s insurance has covered the full cost of replacing the vinyl.
- In my view to allow the full cost of the excess would be to return the landlord to a better position than they would be in had the tenant not carelessly left the basket in the same position during the tenancy.
- I have therefore awarded a contribution only towards the cost.
- 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.
- I do not accept the tenant’s submission that only one excess should be awarded as the insurance disclosure stated only the excess not that it would be applied per claim.
- The RTA is clear that a tenant is responsible for the cost of repairs needed because they have been careless. In this case the insurance claims all related to quite separate actions of carelessness and the damage occurred at different times and in different rooms. Whether the landlord had insurance or not the amounts awarded would be considered reasonable compensation for each of the careless action/actions.
- The landlord is partly successful, so the tenant is to pay the filing fee and name suppression is approved.
- As the tenant’s bond has covered her liability her name is also to be supressed.