How much money was awarded in case 5280882?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Marks On Carpet: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Decals From Walls: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $747.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280882?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12620305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5280882?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Marks On Carpet: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Decals From Walls: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $747.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280882?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12620305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280882 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280882 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280882 — net $1,297.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$747.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: marks on carpet	$350.00	Repairs: marks on carpet
Repairs: damage on lino from fridge	$150.00	Repairs: damage on lino from fridge
Repairs: remove decals from walls	$250.00	Repairs: remove decals from walls
Net award	$1,297.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,297.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details and of the tenancy address.

[The tenant/s] must pay Linkpeople Limited $1,297.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $488.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.

Reasons

Two representatives for the landlord (H and J) and the tenant (A) attended the hearing held in person.

The landlord and tenant were parties to a tenancy which started in November 2020 and ended in April 2025 after the tenant decided to move to another town.

The landlord has made an application to recover some costs.

The landlord supplied records and photographs from the start of the tenancy and from the final inspection. Copies of invoices were also provided.

I record the separate issues and my decisions below. Cleaning and removal of goods and rubbish left at the tenancy

A tenant has a legal obligation to leave tenancy premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys, and leave all landlord chattels provided with the property. This is in section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord claims a modest amount for extra cleaning after the tenancy ended.

The photos satisfy me that the main areas of the house were cleaned, and most areas were reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant agrees that a few areas were missed (inside a few drawers and the laundry). Hard-to-reach areas (ceilings and corners) and marks on some walls and doorframes etc needed some extra attention. I award this claim of $287.50.

A also agrees that she was not able to take all her furniture with her or arrange to have it removed. The photos show bulky items left behind including a lounge suite, outdoor couch, child’s swing-set and bikes, one tyre, and outdoor equipment including two lawn mowers, garden furniture and some timber (in the carport and near the shed). Some smaller household items were left tidily in a pile inside and two or three kitchen cupboards were not emptied.

The landlord had to pay a contractor to remove and dump the items. After discussion it was agreed that A will pay the contractor’s fee. The skip bin cost is met by the landlord as some of the disposal required relates to removal of carpet and lino for which the tenant is not liable (discussed below). I award $747.50 as invoiced.

What is the law relating to damage to tenancy premises?

A landlord must prove that any damage happened during this tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property. For example, over time, carpets and curtains get worn, walls get marked and bumped, hinges loosen, and appliances break down.

A tenant is liable for the loss caused to a landlord by any intentional or careless damage. The most a tenant is liable for if damage is careless, is the amount of the insurance excess or four weeks' market rent (whichever is less). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

If damage is proven, the Tribunal usually tries to work out compensation which will, as near as possible, return the landlord to the position they would have been in if there had not been careless or intentional damage. The landlord should not be better or worse off.

I explained in the hearing that this often means the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has published general depreciation rates for residential rental property chattels (see form IR265). This estimates the expected useful life of various items including carpet (8 years), curtains (8 years), fridges and freezers (8 years), domestic vacuum cleaners (3 years), heat pumps (10 years). Marks on carpet and lino

The inspection report and photographs from the start of the tenancy show that:- a. The carpet in the lounge and bedrooms was in reasonable to good condition with some existing small marks; b. The lino in the dining/kitchen area was in reasonable condition but with some existing damage including a long scrape, a scratch and one small dent.

The landlord does not know the age of the carpet and lino at the start of the tenancy. Neither were new. My estimate (from looking at the ingoing photos) is that the carpet was 4 to 6 years old and the lino 3 to 4 years old.

The photos from the end of the tenancy show:- a. Three drops of red dye on the lounge carpet; b. The carpet edge frayed along the join into the dining room (wear and tear); c. Carpet wearing at the joins in bedroom 1 (wear and tear); d. A white stain and less visible yellowy and pink stains (the tenant thinks perhaps from children’s felts or perhaps fizzy drinks) in bedroom 1; e. Five or six small stains and two medium-sized (about 20cm) orange stains in bedroom 2; f. One new small dent in the lino in the kitchen and one medium sized area of damage (about 10 cm) where the tenant said the base of her fridge has scraped through the lino.

The tenant accepts, and I agree, that the stains on the carpet and the damage to the lino are more than wear and tear.

The landlord decided to replace the carpet in the whole house and the lino in the kitchen and dining area and the application seeks compensation for the full replacement cost from the tenant.

The amount of compensation claimed is unreasonable. The carpet and lino were not new at the start of the tenancy and already had some modest marks and dents. This tenancy was 4½ years long, so the carpet was probably eight to ten years old by the time the tenancy ended. Arguably, it was due for replacement at the end of the tenancy as part of normal maintenance, so the landlord has not suffered additional loss from the stains. The landlord could have chosen to have the carpets professionally cleaned and the stains treated.

Similarly, the lino was probably more than six years old and about three- quarters through its expected life by the end of the tenancy. My assessment is that the lino damage (from the fridge) could have been repaired (eg, a patch) and the other dent is minor. Damage to lino is relatively common so I do not think it was a reasonable decision to replace it.

My decision is to award $350.00 as a contribution by the tenant towards the stains on the carpet (I base this award on my estimate of the cost of carpet cleaning and stain treatment) and $150.00 for my estimate of what it may have cost to have the lino damage repaired. Decals/stickers on walls and pin holes

The inspection report and photographs from the start of the tenancy show that:- a. The walls, doors, skirtings and ceilings in the house were in average to reasonable painted condition; b. There were some existing pin and nail holes.

The landlord does not know when the house was previously painted but agrees it was not newly painted when this tenancy began.

The photos from the end of the tenancy show:- a. Pen marks on one architrave (showing the heights of children); b. Two circular patches of torn wallpaper (5cm) where A says a mirror had been hung up; c. Four new screw holes and two splodges of child’s paint or pen under the window in bedroom 1; d. Decals or stickers applied for decoration in the kitchen, and on the bathroom and toilet door.

The landlord has had the house fully repainted inside including ceilings, windows, doorframes, doors and walls. It claims half of the total cost of this work which is $4,887.25.

Again, the tenant accepts that some damage occurred during her tenancy. The damage is more than wear and tear, and some has happened intentionally (eg; screw holes and attaching decals and stickers).

However, the amount of the landlord’s claim is again unrealistic.

I apply similar logic to that of the damage to the carpet and lino.

The house was not newly painted at the start of the tenancy and had some existing marks and imperfection. The IRD guide does not include the expected life of interior painting but a helpful Harcourts New Zealand guide 1 comments that: “Most interior paint jobs are expected to last between five and 10 years. With tenanted properties, it would be reasonable to expect there to be more wear and tear as tenants would generally move more frequently than homeowners.”

In this case, the paint was not new, and the tenancy was 4½ years long therefore interior painting was probably due at the end of the tenancy.

That said, a tenant should not stick decals and other decorative items on walls unless they have the prior agreement of the landlord to do so. Even with landlord consent, a tenant is liable for the damage caused when these are removed. I award compensation of $250.00 to recognise that the decals and other marks did cause damage. Filing fee and suppression of name

I make no award for the filing fee.

Both parties request suppression of their names from the published order. The Tribunal must usually grant this if a party has been wholly or substantially successful but also considers the public interest and conduct of the parties; section 95A RTA.

Both parties have been successful as the landlord proved its claims, but the tenant was correct in her view that the amount claimed was unreasonable.

The landlord is a social housing provider so there is a public interest in its actions because it is responsible for the use of taxpayer’s funds. My decision is 1 See Common Rental Property Expenditure | Resources | Harcourts New Zealand that publication of the landlord’s name is in the public interest, so it is not suppressed.

Claims for extra cleaning, rubbish removal, and minor damage have been proven against the tenant but they are the sorts of issues that are common to households with young children and financial challenges. Also, the tenant attended the hearing and was constructive 2 and realistic in accepting responsibility. My decision is that her interests in privacy and future renting prospects outweigh the public interest on this occasion. The tenant’s name is suppressed (with the support of the landlord).

The bond is refunded to the landlord and the tenant is discussing a repayment plan with the landlord (which will avoid extra collection costs).

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280882 — net $1,297.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$747.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: marks on carpet	$350.00	Repairs: marks on carpet
Repairs: damage on lino from fridge	$150.00	Repairs: damage on lino from fridge
Repairs: remove decals from walls	$250.00	Repairs: remove decals from walls
Net award	$1,297.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,297.00