What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295608 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 5295608?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295608?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12423172-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295608 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 5295608?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295608?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12423172-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5295608 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Utumoe Junior Moors must pay [The landlord/s] $1,219.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the hearing. The phone numbers for the tenant, the last three digits being 807 and the last three digits of an old phone number being 430, were both called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, outgoings, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord acknowledged receiving the full bond of $2,720.00, from which they have deducted rent arrears owing by the tenant of $2,594.29. Therefore, the balance remaining from the bond refund is $125.71. The landlord asked that the bond balance be used as a credit for the tenant against any orders made in this application.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 11 February 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices and a ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for water, which is $248.28.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an Entry Inspection Report dated 10 July 2023 and an Exit Inspection Report dated 13 February 2025. Both had extensive photographs attached of the condition of the property at the start and end of the tenancy. Cleaning
The landlord said they needed to engage a cleaner, in the amount of $402.50 as per an invoice also provided in this regard, as the tenant had not properly cleaned the stove, top of the rangehood, floors and carpets and all the scuff marks, dirty marks and drawings on the walls, doors and windowsills. They said the cleaner also had to rehang a set of curtains left off the rail by the tenant. Whilst the photographs of the property showed the condition of the property was mostly tidy at the end of the tenancy, the landlord highlighted photographs that showed that further cleaning of the stove, dirty marks, scuff marks and drawings on the walls, doors and windowsills and cleaning of the laundry floor, was still required to bring the standard to one of being reasonably clean and tidy. I find, given the evidence, this cleaning claimed in the amount of $402.50 was required and is a reasonable cost. Therefore, I award the landlord $402.50 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Gardens and rubbish removal
The landlord said the lawns were not done at the end of the tenancy and were overgrown all around the house. The landlord provided photographs of the overgrown lawn and of rubbish left outside and inside the property, including rubbish bins, boxes and several other rubbish items left by the tenant at the property. The landlord claimed $402.50 for mowing the lawns and removing and disposing of all the rubbish left by the tenant and provided an invoice confirming this cost. Given the evidence provided, I find that this work was required at the end of the tenancy and the cost claimed is reasonable. As such, I award the landlord $402.50 for mowing the lawns and removing and disposing of all rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. Key
The landlord said the tenant lost one of the keys and did not return one key. The landlord claimed $8.00 to replace this key. However, the lost key was not mentioned in the Exit Inspection Report as an issue, and I note that the invoice provided by the landlord for the key replacement was dated 2 months after the tenancy ended. The landlord said they had used their own key for a while after the tenancy finished, that it took a while to get new tenants and that they did not get another key cut until just before the new tenants moved in. However, given the lack of mention of the missing key in the Exit Inspection Report and the key replacement invoice being 2 months after the end of the tenancy, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Smoke alarm battery
The landlord said they had to replace a smoke alarm battery during the tenancy, after a routine inspection in August 2024 showed a missing smoke alarm battery. The landlord provided an invoice for $5.75 in this regard which showed the missing smoke alarm battery was replaced on 30 September 2024. I find the landlord has proved this claim and so award the landlord $5.75 to replace a smoke alarm battery.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. Hole in lounge wall
The landlord said the tenant caused a hole in the lounge wall and provided a photograph showing this in the Exit Inspection Report.
The landlord claimed $437.00 to repair the hole in the wall.
Given the evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.
The landlord has claimed $437.00 to plaster and paint the hole in the lounge wall. I find a more reasonable cost, given the size of the hole and that it is only one hole, to be $250.00 plus GST coming to $287.50, to plaster and paint this one hole in the lounge wall. I find a reasonable apportionment of this is $143.75 to the plastering of the hole and $143.75 to the painting of the hole in the wall.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. 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 or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord said the property had last been painted in mid-2023, just before this tenancy began in July 2023. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such I deduct the apportioned cost of $143.75 for painting the hole in the wall by 20% for depreciation to an award of $115.00 for the painting.
Adding the award of $115.00 for painting the hole to $143.75 for the plastering of the hole, I award a total of $258.75 to the landlord to repair the damaged hole in the lounge wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295608 — Cleanliness

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295608 — Cleanliness

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?