Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5296921 — Property damage
Decided 8 Sept 2025 · Published 8 Sept 2025 · Application 5296921
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Pollak
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $6,207.05
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,407.05
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning | $302.50 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Repairs: Plaster and paint walls, doors, ceiling and carry | $2,443.14 | Repairs: Plaster and paint walls, doors, ceiling and carry | |
| Cleaning | $531.88 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $502.53 | Rubbish removal | |
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord] $1,407.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
- I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord has produced photographic evidence that proves the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- 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.
- The landlord has produced entry and exit inspection photographs that prove the following damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear: a. Damage to the bedroom walls in all four bedrooms; b. Damage to the door in bedroom 2; c. Damage to the hallway, dining room and lounge walls; d. Damage to the kitchen door; e. Damage to the wardrobe in bedroom 4 and bedroom 4 ceiling; and f. Damage to the kitchen drawers and a door handle.
- I am satisfied the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and is a result of the tenant’s careless acts or omissions. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account 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. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
- Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
- 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.
- The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102(4), s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296921 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 5296921?
Cleaning: $302.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $531.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Plaster and paint walls, doors, ceil…: $2,443.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $502.53 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296921?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296921?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12378204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.