What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5285842 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5285842?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $154.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285842?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12392013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5285842 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5285842?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $154.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5285842?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5285842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12392013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5285842 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5285842 — net $418.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$154.29	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Wall repair/touch up	$187.50	Wall repair/touch up
Carpet Cleaning (part	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning (part
Net award	$418.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$418.79

The landlord attended. The hearing was conducted via video conference. There was no appearance by the tenants. A call to the local number available went answered.

One tenant had indicated they were now overseas and would not attend; being of the opinion their leaving New Zealand meant no jurisdiction existed. That is incorrect and jurisdiction remains, albeit any offshore enforcement becomes problematic.

The tenants made an application for the bond without the agreement of the landlord (see s 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). I understand this was processed and the bond released in full to the tenants.

The landlord has raised a separate concern with the Bond Centre regarding how that was processed.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation, as well as the reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Both parties agree the tenancy ended on 11 April 2025. The rent arrears of $154.29 reflects one day of rent. The tenant was incorrect in calculating the final rent payment made and a check calculation confirmed the tenancy was of 32 weeks and 5 day duration and $154.29 rent arrears is correct.

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 tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $138.00 for carpet stain removal. The carpet was new at commencement. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided, as well as a series of comparative (before/after) photos. These were of three areas. Of the three, I consider one (the yellow stain) was a tenant liability and I have revised downwards the award to reflect that, being $50.00 as tenant contribution to the carpet stain removal.

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.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear.

The premises were freshly painted at commencement. At the end of the tenancy there were a number of areas that had been marked. One partial repair of the wall after the likely removal of a fixture was shown in a photo. It is not established that permission for the fixture was obtained but regardless, the tenant failed to return the area to the substantially same condition.

The landlord provided a series of comparative photos as well as an invoice for the “Repair the dent, repaint the wall, and remove stains and marks.”, totalling $287.50.

Having reviewed the photos and considered any possible fair wear or tear on newly painted walls, I consider the need for the contractor to make the repairs as shown has been proven and I accept the invoice amount, less $100.00 (an award of $187.50) that I consider reflects some areas that were more likely fair wear and as such a tenant responsibility. This was a family rental with a number of children and expected high foot traffic. Some consequential markings on walls from such an occupation, being caused by less than careless action, should be expected. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5285842 — net $418.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$154.29	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Wall repair/touch up	$187.50	Wall repair/touch up
Carpet Cleaning (part	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning (part
Net award	$418.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$418.79

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Megan Gunning and Neil Gunning must pay [The landlord/s] $418.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended. The hearing was conducted via video conference. There was no appearance by the tenants. A call to the local number available went answered.
One tenant had indicated they were now overseas and would not attend; being of the opinion their leaving New Zealand meant no jurisdiction existed. That is incorrect and jurisdiction remains, albeit any offshore enforcement becomes problematic.
The tenants made an application for the bond without the agreement of the landlord (see s 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). I understand this was processed and the bond released in full to the tenants.
The landlord has raised a separate concern with the Bond Centre regarding how that was processed.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation, as well as the reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Both parties agree the tenancy ended on 11 April 2025. The rent arrears of $154.29 reflects one day of rent. The tenant was incorrect in calculating the final rent payment made and a check calculation confirmed the tenancy was of 32 weeks and 5 day duration and $154.29 rent arrears is correct.

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 tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $138.00 for carpet stain removal. The carpet was new at commencement. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided, as well as a series of comparative (before/after) photos. These were of three areas. Of the three, I consider one (the yellow stain) was a tenant liability and I have revised downwards the award to reflect that, being $50.00 as tenant contribution to the carpet stain removal.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear.
The premises were freshly painted at commencement. At the end of the tenancy there were a number of areas that had been marked. One partial repair of the wall after the likely removal of a fixture was shown in a photo. It is not established that permission for the fixture was obtained but regardless, the tenant failed to return the area to the substantially same condition.
The landlord provided a series of comparative photos as well as an invoice for the “Repair the dent, repaint the wall, and remove stains and marks.”, totalling $287.50.
Having reviewed the photos and considered any possible fair wear or tear on newly painted walls, I consider the need for the contractor to make the repairs as shown has been proven and I accept the invoice amount, less $100.00 (an award of $187.50) that I consider reflects some areas that were more likely fair wear and as such a tenant responsibility. This was a family rental with a number of children and expected high foot traffic. Some consequential markings on walls from such an occupation, being caused by less than careless action, should be expected. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5285842 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5285842 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 rent?

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