What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284899 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3205479-013) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5284899?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $425.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284899?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12308249-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284899 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3205479-013) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5284899?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $425.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284899?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12308249-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

94 Moana Crescent, Musselburgh, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284899 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284899. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Painting	$425.50	Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3205479-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Wgr Property Management Limited As Agent For Alan & Toni Aikman: $732.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,067.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application concerns the vacated tenancy at 95 Moana Crescent, Dunedin. The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2019 and ended on the 15 th of March 2025. The applicant is seeking $425.50 for painting, $100.00 for carpet cleaning, $207.00 for curtain cleaning and repair, $996.00 for replacement of curtains and sheer curtains, and $100.00 to repair a roller blind.
With any claim from an applicant for compensation for damage to the premises, the applicant must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability the respondent must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Respondents are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Claim 1: Painting
The claim for $425.50, the applicant tells me, was to hire a painter to complete painting of areas where the respondents’ children drew on the walls and then the respondent painted over the scribble to conceal the markings. The photos show scribbles covering large parts of the walls, but not the subsequent painting. the applicant did not present photographs, telling me they were lost. The applicant and the respondent agree that the walls were painted.
The applicant states they were not painted to a workmanlike standard. The respondent states he used a brush to paint over the scribbles. The manner that the respondent described their remedial work is consistent with what the applicant has told me. I am satisfied that the remedial painting claimed for by the applicant was careless damage. It is below the applicant’s insurance excess of $750.00. I therefore award the $425.00 for painting. Claim 2: Carpet Cleaning
With regard to the claim for carpet cleaning of $100.00 to clean some stains in one room, the respondent accepted that claim and it was not contested. $100.00 is awarded. Claim 3: Sheer Curtain cleaning and repair.
There are two claims in relation to the curtain sheers. The first is for $207.00, which was for cleaning carried out by Chemdry and for some repairs to sheers that were able to be repaired.
The photos show that the sheers had ingrained mould that did not respond to cleaning. This suggests that cleaning was not completed at regular intervals and that this part of the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The amount of $207.00 is therefore awarded. Claim 4: Sheer Curtain replacement.
The second claim related to the curtain sheers is for $996.00 for replacement of the sheers that were not able to be cleaned or repaired. Photographs of these sheers were not provided, and it is unclear to me exactly why they were unable to be repaired.
Even if I were to consider making an award for this cost and accepted that the curtain sheers were carelessly damaged, I would need to account for depreciation and betterment. There is no suggestion that the curtain sheers were intentionally damaged. The applicant should be returned to the position they would have been in had the respondent not breached their obligations. This means the applicant cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and general condition of the sheers when the damage occurred, and their otherwise useful lifespan.
The tenancy lasted approximately five years. The IRD depreciation guide, which I rely on in making my assessment, does not provide specific guidance for sheers but suggests that the lifetime of curtains is eight years. Sheers are typically less durable than curtains and require replacement from time to time.
It is true that if they had been well maintained they may not have required replacement. However, I consider that in any event they were fully depreciated, and that the applicant now has the benefit of new custom-made sheers.
Any award I might have made would have been nominal. I therefore make no award in respect of this claim. Claim 4: Reinstallation of the roller blind
The $100.00 claim relates to repairs of the roller blind. The applicant states that the roller blind was caught in the slider doors probably due to wind and became dislodged. The respondent, to their credit, attempted to reinstall the roller blind, but did so incorrectly. As a result, the roller blind was not able to open or close fully and was not fully functional.
Despite the incorrect reinstallation, the applicant has told me that the damage was caused because the wind blew the roller blind into the slider door and is therefore not the responsibility of the respondent.
Had the respondent not reinstalled the roller blind incorrectly, the applicant would have been responsible for its reinstallation anyway. The claim is therefore dismissed. Conclusion
I have made an award of less than 50% of what the applicant has asked for. I do not consider that to be wholly or substantially successful. I therefore decline to award the application filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284899. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Painting	$425.50	Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3205479-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Wgr Property Management Limited As Agent For Alan & Toni Aikman: $732.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,067.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application concerns the vacated tenancy at 95 Moana Crescent, Dunedin. The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2019 and ended on the 15 th of March 2025. The applicant is seeking $425.50 for painting, $100.00 for carpet cleaning, $207.00 for curtain cleaning and repair, $996.00 for replacement of curtains and sheer curtains, and $100.00 to repair a roller blind.
With any claim from an applicant for compensation for damage to the premises, the applicant must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability the respondent must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Respondents are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Claim 1: Painting
The claim for $425.50, the applicant tells me, was to hire a painter to complete painting of areas where the respondents’ children drew on the walls and then the respondent painted over the scribble to conceal the markings. The photos show scribbles covering large parts of the walls, but not the subsequent painting. the applicant did not present photographs, telling me they were lost. The applicant and the respondent agree that the walls were painted.
The applicant states they were not painted to a workmanlike standard. The respondent states he used a brush to paint over the scribbles. The manner that the respondent described their remedial work is consistent with what the applicant has told me. I am satisfied that the remedial painting claimed for by the applicant was careless damage. It is below the applicant’s insurance excess of $750.00. I therefore award the $425.00 for painting. Claim 2: Carpet Cleaning
With regard to the claim for carpet cleaning of $100.00 to clean some stains in one room, the respondent accepted that claim and it was not contested. $100.00 is awarded. Claim 3: Sheer Curtain cleaning and repair.
There are two claims in relation to the curtain sheers. The first is for $207.00, which was for cleaning carried out by Chemdry and for some repairs to sheers that were able to be repaired.
The photos show that the sheers had ingrained mould that did not respond to cleaning. This suggests that cleaning was not completed at regular intervals and that this part of the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The amount of $207.00 is therefore awarded. Claim 4: Sheer Curtain replacement.
The second claim related to the curtain sheers is for $996.00 for replacement of the sheers that were not able to be cleaned or repaired. Photographs of these sheers were not provided, and it is unclear to me exactly why they were unable to be repaired.
Even if I were to consider making an award for this cost and accepted that the curtain sheers were carelessly damaged, I would need to account for depreciation and betterment. There is no suggestion that the curtain sheers were intentionally damaged. The applicant should be returned to the position they would have been in had the respondent not breached their obligations. This means the applicant cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and general condition of the sheers when the damage occurred, and their otherwise useful lifespan.
The tenancy lasted approximately five years. The IRD depreciation guide, which I rely on in making my assessment, does not provide specific guidance for sheers but suggests that the lifetime of curtains is eight years. Sheers are typically less durable than curtains and require replacement from time to time.
It is true that if they had been well maintained they may not have required replacement. However, I consider that in any event they were fully depreciated, and that the applicant now has the benefit of new custom-made sheers.
Any award I might have made would have been nominal. I therefore make no award in respect of this claim. Claim 4: Reinstallation of the roller blind
The $100.00 claim relates to repairs of the roller blind. The applicant states that the roller blind was caught in the slider doors probably due to wind and became dislodged. The respondent, to their credit, attempted to reinstall the roller blind, but did so incorrectly. As a result, the roller blind was not able to open or close fully and was not fully functional.
Despite the incorrect reinstallation, the applicant has told me that the damage was caused because the wind blew the roller blind into the slider door and is therefore not the responsibility of the respondent.
Had the respondent not reinstalled the roller blind incorrectly, the applicant would have been responsible for its reinstallation anyway. The claim is therefore dismissed. Conclusion
I have made an award of less than 50% of what the applicant has asked for. I do not consider that to be wholly or substantially successful. I therefore decline to award the application filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284899 — Cleanliness at 94 Moana Crescent, Musselburgh, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284899 — Cleanliness at 94 Moana Crescent, Musselburgh, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.