What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277180 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $499.50 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5277180?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $192.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277180?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12304945-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277180 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $499.50 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5277180?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $192.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277180?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12304945-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Landmark Terrace, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277180 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277180 — net $499.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$57.50	Cleaning
Compensation for carpet	$250.00	Compensation for carpet
Compensation for broken lights in garage	$192.00	Compensation for broken lights in garage
Net award	$499.50
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$499.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277180 — net $499.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$57.50	Cleaning
Compensation for carpet	$250.00	Compensation for carpet
Compensation for broken lights in garage	$192.00	Compensation for broken lights in garage
Net award	$499.50
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$499.50

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $499.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (6255956-002) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $499.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,380.50
The landlord’s applications for compensation for general cleaning, a replacement pool key and for damage to the garage carpet, the letterbox, the blinds, the paintwork, and the door handle are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place at North Shore District Court on 22 August 2025. Paula Skyrme attended the hearing with the tenant as a support person.
This is a counter claim. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. A. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden of proof. It is particularly important for a landlord to provide photographs showing the damage claimed and, where the damage is disputed, the landlord will need evidence (i.e. photographs, video or an ingoing inspection report) proving the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. B. The additional terms in the tenancy agreement:
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties appears to be a standard form agreement used by the then agent, Barfoot & Thompson. However, towards the end of the agreement, there is a section titled “Additional Special Conditions” which includes several additional terms.
Section 137(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: No person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act.
Section 11(3) of the RTA provides that a tenant cannot waive any rights or powers conferred on the tenant by the RTA.
In Safer Home Limited v latalya Arohe Tina Rewai [2021] NZTT Porirua 4292331, 4294725, the tenancy agreement included a clause that said that the carpets were “to be cleaned to a professional standard ...” at the end of the tenancy. In that case, this Tribunal found that this clause exceeded the tenant’s obligations under the RTA to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and therefore was a breach of section 137.
Breaching the obligation under section 137 of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. (See section 137(2) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.)
During the hearing and in the landlord’s written submissions, the landlord has asserted that the tenant has breached several of the additional terms and conditions in the tenancy agreement in addition to breaching her obligations under the RTA. If the additional terms and conditions are in breach of section 137 of the RTA, it follows that they will not be enforceable. However, the tenant has not sought exemplary damages and I make no such award. C. Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?
Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA provides a tenant is to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and failed to return a key.
Claim for general cleaning: a. The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and is seeking compensation of $270 for cleaning costs. An invoice has been provided to support this claim. b. This is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof. The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence to support their allegation that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant admits that she did not clean behind or under the washing machine. However, this is not a tenant responsibility. Moving of appliances for cleaning is a landlord maintenance job. c. The landlord says that the tenant breached two of the additional clauses in the tenancy agreement: “Keep premises clean and tidy” and “keep toilets, baths, basins and sinks in a clean condition.” d. I find that these clauses are unenforceable. The tenant’s obligation is not to keep premises clean and tidy or to keep specific areas of the premises in a “clean condition”. The tenant’s obligation is to keep the premises and, at the end of the tenancy, leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy”. By omitting the word “reasonably” these clauses exceed the tenant’s obligations under the RTA. The landlord has breached section 137 by including them in the tenancy agreement. e. This claim is dismissed.
Claim for blind cleaning: a. The landlord claims that the blinds needed to be cleaned. The landlord has provided photographs showing that there was extensive mould on the blinds and I accept they needed to be cleaned. The tenant says the blinds were left up and she had not noticed the mould. b. The landlord has provided an invoice showing they were charged $250.12 for repairs to and cleaning of the blinds. It is not clear from the invoice how much the landlord was charged for cleaning of the blinds. However, having viewed the photographs I consider that a reasonable charge for a commercial cleaner to clean the blinds would be one hour at $50 plus GST. I award $57.50 (including GST) for this claim.
Claim for missing pool key: a. The premises resides within a complex which included a communal pool. The landlord says the tenant was given two keys to the pool but only returned one pool key at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $70 for the key. b. The tenant says she was only given one key for the pool. The tenancy agreement states at page 3 “pool/gym key – if lost $70”. The reference to the key is in the singular. c. Again, this is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof. I am not satisfied that the tenant was given two keys for the pool. d. This claim is dismissed. D. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the tenant is liable for the following damage: damage to the carpet, damage to the garage carpet, damage to the paintwork in 2 of the bedrooms and the garage; damage to the letterbox, damage to the blinds, and damage to the door handle.
Damage to the carpet: a. The landlord says that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s cat soiling it in 3 different places in the living area. b. The landlord is claiming $4,960.93 (including GST) to replace the entire carpet in the living area. The tenant acknowledges that the cats did urinate on the carpet and says that this occurred when one of her children accidentally locked the cats inside. She says she would have paid to have one of the damaged corners of the carpet fixed but does not believe she should be responsible for replacement of the entire carpet. The landlord says that the carpet is obsolete and cannot be matched and says that the practical solution is to replace the carpet in the lounge. c. There are several issues with this claim. Firstly, the work has not been done. The landlord has provided a quote for the work. The landlord has advised that the premises are on the market and the work will need to be done before it is sold or as a condition of the sale. In order to award damages, I must be satisfied that the landlord has suffered a loss. d. In addition, I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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 of worse of. The carpet was installed in 2016. At the end of the tenancy, 12 February 2025, the carpet was around 9 years of age. e. The Inland Revenue General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024 1 provides that carpet in a residential rental property has an estimated useful life of 8 years. This means the depreciation rate for carpet is 17.5% per year. Applying this depreciation rate means the carpet was due to be replaced. f. The landlord says that the carpet was in very good condition. However, the landlord has not provided any photographic evidence of the carpet at the start of the tenancy to support this assertion. g. The landlord referred to the following additional clauses in the tenancy agreement regarding the damage to the carpet: Any damage caused by the tenant’s cats will be rectified at the tenants expenses h. And: The tenant must remedy any damage by the cat to the house or grounds immediately. i. The issue with these clauses is that they exceed the obligations under the RTA. The circumstances where a tenant will be liable for damage are set out in section 40 of the RTA. Broadly, this is where the damage is more 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz › ir265-august-2024, retrieved on 22 August 2025. than wear and tear and is caused by the tenant either carelessly or intentionally (see paragraph 18 above.) While there are many circumstances where damage caused by a pet will be deemed to be damage caused by the tenant either intentionally or carelessly, there are also circumstances where damage caused by a pet will not intentional or careless and will not be the tenant’s responsibility. j. The additional clauses referred to above state unequivocally that the tenant is liable for damage caused by the pet. I find that these clauses exceed the tenant’s obligation under the RTA and that by including them in the tenancy agreement, the landlord has breached section 137 of the RTA (see paragraphs 7-12 above) and the clauses are unenforceable. k. I consider that the damage was caused to the carpet during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless. In Guo v Kwork, the tenant’s dogs who resided in the premises with permission from the landlord, had damaged the carpet by urinating on it in several rooms of the house. The High Court found that the damage was intentional saying: It’s also reasonable to conclude that the Korcks knew, after a few episodes of the dogs urinating inside that further damage was certain if the dogs remained inside. The damage could have been mitigated. It was not. l. The tenant has provided with the quote for the work a witness statement from a Mr Leggett, who provided the quote saying that there was damage to the skirting boards as well as the carpet and the underlay. Mr Leggett did not attend the hearing as a witness and neither I nor the tenant had the opportunity to question him. For this reason, I place limited weight on his evidence. The photographs provided do show there is some damage to the skirting board. However, I the quotation provided does not show any additional charges to repair the skirting boards. m. While it is finally balanced, I find that the damage to the carpet was intentional. After the cats had urinated in the premises once or twice, steps should have been taken to make sure it did not happen again. However, a finding that the damage was intentional does not mean the tenant is responsible for the full cost of a replacing the carpet. I must consider betterment and depreciation (see paragraph d above). n. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they will replace the carpet when the premises is sold or as a condition of the sale. o. While the carpet was due to be replaced, I find there was some residual value in the carpet, and that the landlord will need to make this investment earlier than it may have needed to had the carpet not been damaged. p. I make an award of $250 for the damage to the carpet.
Damage to the garage carpet: a. The landlord claims that that the carpet in the garage was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing that there were oil and other stains on the carpet and that there was a damaged area by the garage door. The landlord is seeking $1804 (including GST) to replace the carpet. The garage carpet has not been replaced. The landlord has provided a quote to support the sum claimed and says it will be replaced before the premises is sold or as a condition of the sale. b. The landlord advises that the garage carpet was put down when the premises was built in 2014. Therefore, the garage carpet is over 10 years old. The landlord said at the hearing that the garage carpet was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy. However, no photographs were provided of the garage carpet at the start of the tenancy. The tenant was asked about the state of the garage carpet at the start of the tenancy. She said she cannot recall as she did not pay attention to it. c. The IRD guidance does not specifically address the lifespan of garage carpet. I consider it is likely that garage carpet is likely to have a longer lifespan than regular carpet and am willing to assume a lifespan of 12 years. d. However, in the absence of photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy (see paragraph 6 above) I am not willing to conclude that the damage was caused during the tenancy. e. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to the letterbox: a. The landlord says that the letterbox was damaged during the tenancy and is claiming $322.00 to rebuild it. The tenant admits that the letterbox was damaged during the tenancy. However, she says the letterbox was not stable or secure from the start of the tenancy and that the damage occurred when it was blown over during a storm in October 2023. The tenant has provided messages between her and the landlord showing that she notified the landlord of the damage at that time and told the landlord that it the letterbox was blown over during the storm. The tenant has provided a photograph of the letterbox showing that it was not fixed to ground. b. The landlord says there is no way a storm could have caused the letterbox to fall over. The landlord has also provided photographs of the damage to the letterbox which they say supports the claim that the damage was inconsistent with the letterbox being knocked over during a storm in October 2023. The landlord admits that they did not raise the matter with the tenant at the time and says that this was because they wished to avoid a confrontation. c. I find the tenant’s claim that the letterbox was damaged during the storm to be plausible. I also consider it is more likely than not that if the landlord genuinely believed that the damage had not been caused by the storm, they would have raised it with the tenant at the time. d. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to the blind: a. The landlord says that one of the blinds was damaged and required a replacement slat and new cord. b. The tenant says that she did not use the blinds and was unaware of damage to the blinds. c. Again, while there was a photograph showing damage to the blind, there were no photographs from the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not satisfied me that the damage was caused during the tenancy. d. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to the paintwork: a. The landlord says there was significant damage to the paintwork in 2 of the bedrooms and the garage. The landlord has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing the damage to the walls in bedroom 2 at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has not provided photographs from the start of the tenancy or of the damage to the paintwork in the other bedroom and the garage. b. The tenant admits damage to the paintwork in bedroom 2 but denies the paintwork in the garage or the other bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. c. The landlord says the interior of the house was painted in 2016 and that it was in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy. However, there are no photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy to support this. d. The tenant says that when the landlord inspected the premises at the end of the tenancy she told her that she would get her bond back and not to worry about the walls because they would be repainted for resale. The landlord denies making either of these comments. e. The landlord is claiming $1,770.36 being $1200 for labour (the landlord’s own labour of 30 hours charged at $40 per hour) and $570.36 for materials. f. Interior paintwork does not last indefinitely. Some in the industry state that the interior should be repainted every 3-7 years 2 or even as regularly as 2- 4 years. 3 However, this information is taken from those in the business of painting and I consider they are likely to lean towards increased frequency. g. In this matter, it had been 9 years since the premises had been painted. I take judicial notice that property owners often choose to paint the interior the home before putting it on the market. h. The landlord has not satisfied me that the damage to the paintwork in the garage and the other bedroom was caused during the tenancy. I find that the damage to the paintwork in the 2 nd bedroom was caused during the tenancy. However, I also find that the premises was due to be painted and, taking into account that this is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof, it is more likely than not that the landlord would have repainted anyway. i. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to the door handle: a. The landlord says a bedroom door handle was broken during the tenancy and replaced with a different type of handle. The landlord says that the replacement handle is not satisfactory because it is different to the other handles in the house. The handle has been replaced and the landlord has provided an invoice showing that the sum paid for the handle was $66.41. b. The tenant denies damaging the door handle. She says that the screws on the door handle had come loose, and the handle was not working. The tenant says her son replaced it. c. The landlord says that the door was damaged when the tenant replaced the handle. The landlord says they have fixed this damage themselves and are not claiming for it. d. I am not satisfied that the damage to the door handle was more than fair wear and tear. 2 https://hbsinterior.co.nz/how-often How Often Do You Actually Have To Paint Your Home? - Superior Painters-house-painters-in-auckland-should-repaint-your-walls/, retrieved on 23 August 2025. 3 e. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to the garage lights: a. The landlord says that two lights or their boxes in the garage were damaged during the tenancy. The lights have not been replaced. The landlord has provided a screenshot showing that the cost to replace the lights is $192.00 and says they intend to replace them. b. The tenant says that one of the lights was broken when her son was moving a surfboard and that she does not know how the other light was broken but does not deny that it was broken during the tenancy. c. I consider the damage caused to one of the lights when moving the surfboard was careless. Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. 4 d. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage done to the other was not careless or intentional. e. This claim is proved. I am satisfied that the landlord will replace the lights before the sale of the premises or as a condition of the sale. f. I award $192.00 (including GST) for this claim.

Should either party be awarded reimbursement of the filing fee?

Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful with their claims. For this reason, I decline to order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277180 — Cleanliness at 29 Landmark Terrace, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277180 — Cleanliness at 29 Landmark Terrace, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should either party be awarded reimbursement of the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should either party be awarded reimbursement of the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.