What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288459 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 5288459?

Cleaning: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Gas: $383.89 awarded to landlord; Plumbing (Unblock Toilet: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,235.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $290.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288459?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288459 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 5288459?

Cleaning: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Gas: $383.89 awarded to landlord; Plumbing (Unblock Toilet: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,235.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $290.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288459?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288459 — Property damage

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288459 — net $2,505.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$290.00	Rubbish removal
Replacement of doors	$2,235.00	Replacement of doors
Replace heat pump remote	$201.25	Replace heat pump remote
Cleaning: and section tidy up	$730.00	15. My finding is that: a.
Gas	$383.89	Gas
Plumbing (unblock toilet	$138.00	Plumbing (unblock toilet
Compensation – curtains	$1,100.00	Compensation – curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,505.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,505.14

The tenancy began on 9 August 2024.

The property was brand new when the tenancy began.

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2025.

The landlord’s application sought compensation for intentional damage (holes in doors), cleaning, rubbish removal, and other costs.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 6 October 2025. [The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the hearing by phone. The tenants had indicated that they would also attend the hearing by phone, but there was no answer when the Registrar attempted to call them multiple times at the scheduled start time.

The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence. Damage

Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the period of the tenancy. 1 Tenants are liable for damage that they cause themselves, and for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 2

[the landlord’s representative] said that when she went to the property on 29 January 2025 to carry out a routine inspection, she found that every internal door except one had large holes, apparently caused by kicks / punches.

[the landlord’s representative] provided photographs of the damage.

The hollow core doors could not be repaired.

The cost of replacing the doors is proven.

There were three large curtains in the lounge. [the landlord’s representative] said that the curtains were high quality. At the end of the tenancy, [the landlord’s representative] found the curtains badly stained and marked at the bottom. The tenants had taken down some curtains and left them on the floor. They were badly stained.

[the landlord’s representative] had the curtains cleaned, but the heavy staining could not be removed. 1 Section 49B(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 41 RTA

[the landlord’s representative] said that the exact same curtains are no longer available. She has located similar, but lesser quality, alternatives at cost of $1,100.00.

My finding is that: a. The doors were intentionally damaged during the tenancy. The tenants are liable for this damage. The cost of replacing the doors is proven. b. The curtains were badly stained and marked during the tenancy, significantly beyond fair wear and tear. The curtains could not be cleaned so replacement is justified. The claim of $1,100.00 is a reasonable and conservative assessment of the value of the curtains. Cleaning, rubbish, section

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 3

[the landlord’s representative]’s end of tenancy photographs show that: a. The premises were left very dirty inside. b. The carpets were dirty. c. The lawns and gardens were left overgrown and untidy. d. The tenants left rubbish and abandoned belongings behind.

In terms of cleaning, [the landlord’s representative] said that: a. She provided the tenants with $80 worth of cleaning products. b. The tenant who moved in after these tenants is a cleaner by profession. The landlord gave the new tenant one week’s free rent to clean the premises and tidy up the garden.

My finding is that: a. The tenants did not meet their duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. b. The cost of removing and disposing of rubbish is proven. c. The cost to the landlord of $650 (one week of rent) is a very reasonable price for bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy. d. [the landlord’s representative] is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of cleaning products given that the tenants clearly did not use them. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Other costs

The toilet was blocked. The plumber who attended the job found that toys had been flushed down the toilet.

The heat pump remote was missing.

The tenants were provided with two full 45kg gas bottles at the start of the tenancy. The bottles needed to be refilled at the end of the tenancy.

My finding is that: a. Unblocking the toilet was not a maintenance cost in this instance. The tenants are liable for the plumbing cost. b. The tenants are liable for the proven cost of replacing the remote. c. Tenants are liable for the cost of outgoings that they consume during the tenancy, including gas. The cost is proven. Bond, filing fee, name suppression

The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The landlord is entitled to receive the bond in full.

[the landlord’s representative] said that she provided a bond release form to the tenants at the end of the tenancy. The tenants forged her signature on the form and fraudulently obtained the bond from the Bond Centre.

The Bond Centre confirmed that they will pay out the bond to the landlord upon receipt of a Police complaint acknowledgment, and this Tenancy Tribunal order.

The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the filing fee to the landlord. 4

The landlord sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlord has been successful in the proceedings. 5

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288459 — net $2,505.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$290.00	Rubbish removal
Replacement of doors	$2,235.00	Replacement of doors
Replace heat pump remote	$201.25	Replace heat pump remote
Cleaning: and section tidy up	$730.00	15. My finding is that: a.
Gas	$383.89	Gas
Plumbing (unblock toilet	$138.00	Plumbing (unblock toilet
Compensation – curtains	$1,100.00	Compensation – curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,505.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,505.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 9 August 2024.
The property was brand new when the tenancy began.
The tenancy ended on 7 May 2025.
The landlord’s application sought compensation for intentional damage (holes in doors), cleaning, rubbish removal, and other costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 6 October 2025. [The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the hearing by phone. The tenants had indicated that they would also attend the hearing by phone, but there was no answer when the Registrar attempted to call them multiple times at the scheduled start time.
The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the period of the tenancy. 1 Tenants are liable for damage that they cause themselves, and for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 2
[the landlord’s representative] said that when she went to the property on 29 January 2025 to carry out a routine inspection, she found that every internal door except one had large holes, apparently caused by kicks / punches.
[the landlord’s representative] provided photographs of the damage.
The hollow core doors could not be repaired.
The cost of replacing the doors is proven.
There were three large curtains in the lounge. [the landlord’s representative] said that the curtains were high quality. At the end of the tenancy, [the landlord’s representative] found the curtains badly stained and marked at the bottom. The tenants had taken down some curtains and left them on the floor. They were badly stained.
[the landlord’s representative] had the curtains cleaned, but the heavy staining could not be removed. 1 Section 49B(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 41 RTA
[the landlord’s representative] said that the exact same curtains are no longer available. She has located similar, but lesser quality, alternatives at cost of $1,100.00.
My finding is that: a. The doors were intentionally damaged during the tenancy. The tenants are liable for this damage. The cost of replacing the doors is proven. b. The curtains were badly stained and marked during the tenancy, significantly beyond fair wear and tear. The curtains could not be cleaned so replacement is justified. The claim of $1,100.00 is a reasonable and conservative assessment of the value of the curtains. Cleaning, rubbish, section
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 3
[the landlord’s representative]’s end of tenancy photographs show that: a. The premises were left very dirty inside. b. The carpets were dirty. c. The lawns and gardens were left overgrown and untidy. d. The tenants left rubbish and abandoned belongings behind.
In terms of cleaning, [the landlord’s representative] said that: a. She provided the tenants with $80 worth of cleaning products. b. The tenant who moved in after these tenants is a cleaner by profession. The landlord gave the new tenant one week’s free rent to clean the premises and tidy up the garden.
My finding is that: a. The tenants did not meet their duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. b. The cost of removing and disposing of rubbish is proven. c. The cost to the landlord of $650 (one week of rent) is a very reasonable price for bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy. d. [the landlord’s representative] is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of cleaning products given that the tenants clearly did not use them. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Other costs
The toilet was blocked. The plumber who attended the job found that toys had been flushed down the toilet.
The heat pump remote was missing.
The tenants were provided with two full 45kg gas bottles at the start of the tenancy. The bottles needed to be refilled at the end of the tenancy.
My finding is that: a. Unblocking the toilet was not a maintenance cost in this instance. The tenants are liable for the plumbing cost. b. The tenants are liable for the proven cost of replacing the remote. c. Tenants are liable for the cost of outgoings that they consume during the tenancy, including gas. The cost is proven. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The landlord is entitled to receive the bond in full.
[the landlord’s representative] said that she provided a bond release form to the tenants at the end of the tenancy. The tenants forged her signature on the form and fraudulently obtained the bond from the Bond Centre.
The Bond Centre confirmed that they will pay out the bond to the landlord upon receipt of a Police complaint acknowledgment, and this Tenancy Tribunal order.
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the filing fee to the landlord. 4
The landlord sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlord has been successful in the proceedings. 5

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288459 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288459 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions