What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297027 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 5297027?

Broken Switch: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Patching: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297027?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13034440-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297027 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 5297027?

Broken Switch: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Patching: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297027?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13034440-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297027 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297027 — net $2,196.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Lawn mowing	$92.00	Lawn mowing
Carpet patching	$650.00	Carpet patching
Kitchen benchtop repair	$1,000.00	Kitchen benchtop repair
Broken switch	$207.00	Broken switch
Damaged door stopper and lock repair cost	$150.00	Damaged door stopper and lock repair cost
Brickwork damage repair	$460.00	Brickwork damage repair
Repair work to walls, doors & skirting board	$1,000.00	Repair work to walls, doors & skirting board
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,196.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,196.00

Order

amends the order, dated 15 December 2025, by correcting the costs table to include the award for “Repair work to walls, doors, & skirting board”, being $1,000.00. In all other respects, the order remains unchanged.

ORDER

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
2Abhinavjit Singh Pannu and Nikita Singh Pannu must pay [the Landlord] $2,196.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (6198950-002) to [the Landlord] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 22 October 2025. Mr Abhinavjit Singh Pannu attended for the tenants.
The landlord has filed a claim seeking compensation for various cleaning, repair, and damage costs arising at the end of the tenancy. The property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and was occupied by the tenants for nearly seven years.
The landlord seeks a total of $9,964.00, comprising costs for internal and external cleaning, repairs to fixtures and fittings, repainting, stain removal, carpet patching, and damage to brickwork, with invoices and photographs in support. The Claims and Parties’ Positions
The landlord claims that the property was returned in an unreasonably dirty state with significant damage to fixtures, walls, flooring, doors, bathroom surfaces, and kitchen benches. The landlord provided numerous photographs and invoices. The landlord argues the damage exceeds fair wear and tear and is in some instances reckless or intentional. They emphasise the house was new when tenanted, and that comparable units in the complex have not suffered the same level of deterioration. Particular claims include: • House cleaning ($920.00) • Outside brick repair ($460.00) • Damaged door stopper and lock repair ($150.00) • Damaged walls, doors etc and marks on the whole house repairs ($4600.00) • Blinds repair ($345.00) • Damaged carpet and stain removal ($650.00) • Broken switch repair ($207.00) • Kitchen benchtop restoration ($1840.00) • Grass cutting ($92.00) • Bathrooms silicon and grout repair ($690.00)
The tenants accept responsibility for cleaning and lawn costs but dispute the balance of the claims. They argue the condition of the house reflects fair wear and tear after seven years of continuous occupation by a family. They state they offered to arrange some cleaning and lawn mowing but the landlord preferred to proceed with their own contractors. The tenants dispute having caused intentional damage and denies any cigarette use or brick damage. They claim the landlord is effectively seeking to renovate the house to its original pristine condition. Relevant law
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 (“RTA”).
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
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.
The concept of “fair wear and tear ” is not defined in the RTA, but generally refers to the reasonable use of a house by a tenant.
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, the Tribunal is to take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord bears the burden of producing enough evidence during the hearing to support and prove their case.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

Cleaning

The tenants accept they did not arrange professional cleaning but believed the landlord would organise it and invoice them. The evidence shows some cleaning was needed: photos reveal dirty bathrooms, showers, kitchen cupboards, and cobwebs. However, this was a seven-year tenancy, and the Tribunal accepts the property was due for a commercial clean regardless.
Applying section 40(1)(e), the standard is “reasonably” clean, not “professionally cleaned”. On the evidence, the Tribunal allows a portion of the costs claimed for cleaning, being $650.00, which is reasonable given the circumstances and photographic evidence. Lawn Mowing
The tenants accept this claim. The amount is modest and supported by invoice. The claim for $92.00 is allowed in full. Blinds
The blinds were nearly seven years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says the damage resulted from forceful pulling and lack of care. The tenants say any deterioration is fair wear and tear.
Given the expected lifespan of blinds (around 8 years), and the absence of clear evidence the damage was caused recklessly or intentionally, this claim is not proved on balance. The claim for $345.00 is therefore dismissed. Carpet Damage
The landlord says they had to cut a replacement patch from the wardrobe due to a visible cigarette-type burn. The tenants deny smoking. However, the photographs support visible damage inconsistent with fair wear and tear. The Tribunal finds the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not disproved by the tenants.
The work has been done, and the cost is reasonable. The claim of $650.00 is allowed in full. Bathroom Silicon and Grout
The photos show mould and discolouration around silicon and grout. However, this appears to be the natural result of long-term use and moisture build-up over a seven-year tenancy. Mould and worn grout, without more, are not automatically proof of tenant breach.
The Tribunal finds this to be fair wear and tear. The claim for $690.00 is therefore dismissed. Wall, Door, and Skirting Board Damage
The landlord claims $4,600.00 for repair costs. The invoice includes $1,495 for plastering and sanding, and $3,105 for painting. The photographs show scuffing, dents, and gouges across multiple areas. However, the paintwork is now seven years old and likely due for refresh regardless.
Allowance is made for actual physical damage (e.g., to skirtings, doors, doorframes) that exceeds fair wear and tear. However, painting costs must be heavily depreciated and in this case are declined.
A reasonable amount of $1,000.00 is awarded for repairs to plaster, walls, and doors. The remainder is declined due to depreciation. Kitchen Benchtop
The landlord claims $1,840.00 for repairs. The landlord says the bench was stained and required specialist grinding/polishing. Photos support visible permanent marks. The landlord chose to repair rather than replace, which was significantly cheaper.
The Tribunal is satisfied the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. However, some depreciation applies. The reduced sum of $1,000.00 is allowed. Broken Switch
The switch panel was broken. The work has been completed, and invoice provided. This damage is not consistent with fair wear and tear and was likely due to impact or force. The full amount of $207.00 is allowed. Brickwork
The landlord says this was caused by external impact. The tenant denies responsibility and suggests the landlord has no evidence it occurred during their tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The full amount of $460.00 is allowed. Door Stopper/Handle
The tenants have not disproved liability for this claim. The full amount of $150.00 is allowed. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. There are no grounds to suppress the tenants’ names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297027 — net $2,196.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Lawn mowing	$92.00	Lawn mowing
Carpet patching	$650.00	Carpet patching
Kitchen benchtop repair	$1,000.00	Kitchen benchtop repair
Broken switch	$207.00	Broken switch
Damaged door stopper and lock repair cost	$150.00	Damaged door stopper and lock repair cost
Brickwork damage repair	$460.00	Brickwork damage repair
Repair work to walls, doors & skirting board	$1,000.00	Repair work to walls, doors & skirting board
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,196.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,196.00

Order

ORDER

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
2Abhinavjit Singh Pannu and Nikita Singh Pannu must pay [the Landlord] $2,196.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (6198950-002) to [the Landlord] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 22 October 2025. Mr Abhinavjit Singh Pannu attended for the tenants.
The landlord has filed a claim seeking compensation for various cleaning, repair, and damage costs arising at the end of the tenancy. The property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and was occupied by the tenants for nearly seven years.
The landlord seeks a total of $9,964.00, comprising costs for internal and external cleaning, repairs to fixtures and fittings, repainting, stain removal, carpet patching, and damage to brickwork, with invoices and photographs in support. The Claims and Parties’ Positions
The landlord claims that the property was returned in an unreasonably dirty state with significant damage to fixtures, walls, flooring, doors, bathroom surfaces, and kitchen benches. The landlord provided numerous photographs and invoices. The landlord argues the damage exceeds fair wear and tear and is in some instances reckless or intentional. They emphasise the house was new when tenanted, and that comparable units in the complex have not suffered the same level of deterioration. Particular claims include: • House cleaning ($920.00) • Outside brick repair ($460.00) • Damaged door stopper and lock repair ($150.00) • Damaged walls, doors etc and marks on the whole house repairs ($4600.00) • Blinds repair ($345.00) • Damaged carpet and stain removal ($650.00) • Broken switch repair ($207.00) • Kitchen benchtop restoration ($1840.00) • Grass cutting ($92.00) • Bathrooms silicon and grout repair ($690.00)
The tenants accept responsibility for cleaning and lawn costs but dispute the balance of the claims. They argue the condition of the house reflects fair wear and tear after seven years of continuous occupation by a family. They state they offered to arrange some cleaning and lawn mowing but the landlord preferred to proceed with their own contractors. The tenants dispute having caused intentional damage and denies any cigarette use or brick damage. They claim the landlord is effectively seeking to renovate the house to its original pristine condition. Relevant law
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 (“RTA”).
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
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.
The concept of “fair wear and tear ” is not defined in the RTA, but generally refers to the reasonable use of a house by a tenant.
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, the Tribunal is to take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord bears the burden of producing enough evidence during the hearing to support and prove their case.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

Cleaning

The tenants accept they did not arrange professional cleaning but believed the landlord would organise it and invoice them. The evidence shows some cleaning was needed: photos reveal dirty bathrooms, showers, kitchen cupboards, and cobwebs. However, this was a seven-year tenancy, and the Tribunal accepts the property was due for a commercial clean regardless.
Applying section 40(1)(e), the standard is “reasonably” clean, not “professionally cleaned”. On the evidence, the Tribunal allows a portion of the costs claimed for cleaning, being $650.00, which is reasonable given the circumstances and photographic evidence. Lawn Mowing
The tenants accept this claim. The amount is modest and supported by invoice. The claim for $92.00 is allowed in full. Blinds
The blinds were nearly seven years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says the damage resulted from forceful pulling and lack of care. The tenants say any deterioration is fair wear and tear.
Given the expected lifespan of blinds (around 8 years), and the absence of clear evidence the damage was caused recklessly or intentionally, this claim is not proved on balance. The claim for $345.00 is therefore dismissed. Carpet Damage
The landlord says they had to cut a replacement patch from the wardrobe due to a visible cigarette-type burn. The tenants deny smoking. However, the photographs support visible damage inconsistent with fair wear and tear. The Tribunal finds the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not disproved by the tenants.
The work has been done, and the cost is reasonable. The claim of $650.00 is allowed in full. Bathroom Silicon and Grout
The photos show mould and discolouration around silicon and grout. However, this appears to be the natural result of long-term use and moisture build-up over a seven-year tenancy. Mould and worn grout, without more, are not automatically proof of tenant breach.
The Tribunal finds this to be fair wear and tear. The claim for $690.00 is therefore dismissed. Wall, Door, and Skirting Board Damage
The landlord claims $4,600.00 for repair costs. The invoice includes $1,495 for plastering and sanding, and $3,105 for painting. The photographs show scuffing, dents, and gouges across multiple areas. However, the paintwork is now seven years old and likely due for refresh regardless.
Allowance is made for actual physical damage (e.g., to skirtings, doors, doorframes) that exceeds fair wear and tear. However, painting costs must be heavily depreciated and in this case are declined.
A reasonable amount of $1,000.00 is awarded for repairs to plaster, walls, and doors. The remainder is declined due to depreciation. Kitchen Benchtop
The landlord claims $1,840.00 for repairs. The landlord says the bench was stained and required specialist grinding/polishing. Photos support visible permanent marks. The landlord chose to repair rather than replace, which was significantly cheaper.
The Tribunal is satisfied the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. However, some depreciation applies. The reduced sum of $1,000.00 is allowed. Broken Switch
The switch panel was broken. The work has been completed, and invoice provided. This damage is not consistent with fair wear and tear and was likely due to impact or force. The full amount of $207.00 is allowed. Brickwork
The landlord says this was caused by external impact. The tenant denies responsibility and suggests the landlord has no evidence it occurred during their tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The full amount of $460.00 is allowed. Door Stopper/Handle
The tenants have not disproved liability for this claim. The full amount of $150.00 is allowed. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. There are no grounds to suppress the tenants’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297027 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297027 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions