What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297219 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 5297219?

Property Damage: $247.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297219?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12237633-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297219 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 5297219?

Property Damage: $247.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297219?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12237633-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297219 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297219. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Window sill damages in master bedroom	$247.25		Repairs: Window sill damages in master bedroom

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297219. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Window sill damages in master bedroom	$247.25		Repairs: Window sill damages in master bedroom

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $247.25 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,132.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference.
[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 13 July 2024 and ended on 5 April 2025. [The tenant/s] vacated the premises on 1 April 2025.
This matter involves a tenancy dispute between the landlord and [The tenant/s], the tenant. The central issue is [The landlord’s representative]’s claim for compensation from the tenant’s bond. Specifically, she seeks reimbursement for: a. professional carpet cleaning allegedly required due to the presence of a cat during the tenancy and the special condition of the tenancy agreement; b. gardening work undertaken to prepare the property for the next tenant; and c. repair of damage to a window sill in the master bedroom.
[The tenant/s] disputes responsibility for these costs, stating that the property was left in good condition and raising questions about whether the issues cited were pre-existing or communicated during 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. Carpet Cleaning and Gardening – Submissions [The landlord’s representative]
[The landlord’s representative] conducted the final inspection on 3 April 2025, ahead of the new tenancy commencing on 6 April. She stated that the carpets had not been professionally cleaned and the gardens were not in a presentable condition. She referenced the tenancy agreement, which included a special condition permitting the tenant to keep a cat on the property, conditional on any damage being rectified and the carpets being professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. She did not receive any response from [the tenant/s] after emailing him on 4 April regarding the garden condition.
Due to time constraints and the imminent arrival of new tenants, [The landlord’s representative] arranged for professional carpet cleaning at a cost of $250.
For the garden, she claimed she was unable to find a contractor on short notice, so she and her 18-year-old son undertook the work themselves on Saturday, 5 April, spending five hours on site. She claimed compensation of $414 for the gardening, based on an hourly rate of $50 for herself and $20 for her son. She also stated that a green waste bin provided for the property had apparently never been used during the tenancy, and noted the presence of items such as a dog’s toy or tennis ball in the garden area. [The tenant/s]
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that a clause in the agreement required carpet cleaning if a cat was kept on the premises. However, he said the cat was only present at the property for approximately three weeks early in the tenancy and again briefly before being euthanised. He described the cat as very old, mostly confined to a cage on the deck, and unlikely to have caused any damage or soiling. He also raised doubts about the cleanliness of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, noting that it had stains and a musty smell. He said he had laid rugs over the carpet due to its poor condition.
Regarding the garden, [the tenant/s] stated that he maintained the area by sweeping the deck and removing leaves. He believed the lawn was regularly mowed by a contractor arranged by the landlord. He was told not to interfere with the flower beds or plants and understood his obligation was limited to general tidiness. He stated that the property was in a reasonable condition when he vacated on 1 April, and that any deterioration could have occurred due to wind and rain in the intervening days. He also disputed the significance of the items referenced by [the landlord’s representative], suggesting they may have been present before his tenancy. Analysis and conclusion
[The landlord’s representative] has sought compensation for both professional carpet cleaning and the time she and her son spent on gardening following the end of [the tenant/s]’s tenancy. The basis for the carpet cleaning claim rests on a special condition in the tenancy agreement, which [the landlord’s representative] submitted, requiring the carpets to be professionally cleaned if a cat was kept on the premises.
The special condition reads “Tenants may keep one desexed adult cat at the property but any damage by cat must be retified (sic) and carpets are to be professionally cleaned at end of tenancy.”
My difficulty with this special condition is that it is not clear whether professional carpet cleaning is a mandatory requirement upon termination of the tenancy, regardless of whether any damage occurred. In my view, the use of the word “and” creates ambiguity. It suggests that professional carpet cleaning is not automatically triggered at the end of the tenancy unless the cat caused damage to the carpet.
While it is accepted that the clause exists and that a cat was present at the property for a short period, the extent of any impact caused by the cat is unclear. [The tenant/s] maintained that the cat was elderly, largely confined to a cage, and only intermittently at the property. He also disputed the state of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy, stating it was already stained and had a musty smell. Importantly, no photographic evidence was provided to demonstrate the condition of the carpets either before or after the tenancy.
With respect to the garden, the parties gave differing accounts. [The landlord’s representative] stated the gardens were not tidy at the end of the tenancy, and she had to spend five hours with her son to bring them up to standard. She referenced an email sent to [the tenant/s] on 4 April, requesting he attend to the matter, but received no response.
However, [The landlord’s representative] did not provide time-stamped photographic evidence showing the state of the garden at the time of vacating. The only photos produced were dated 17 April, more than two weeks after the tenant left, and therefore do not reliably reflect the garden’s condition on 1 April. [The tenant/s], for his part, stated he regularly maintained the garden, kept the deck clear of leaves, and believed the property was left in a reasonable condition.
In both instances, [the landlord’s representative] bears the burden of proving her claims on the balance of probabilities. While her submissions were detailed, the absence of photographic evidence makes it difficult for me to objectively assess the actual condition of the carpets and garden at the relevant time. I note that the pre-tenancy inspection report is dated 11 July 2024. This report contains no photos other than typed records of the inspector’s observation of the conditions of the premises, including a statement: “Floor – good, carpet, some minor staining (photographed) professionally cleaned at start of tenancy.” (italic mine)
The garden photos were taken significantly after the tenancy ended, and there is no direct evidence linking any alleged deterioration to the tenant’s actions or omissions.
For the reasons above, I am not satisfied that [the landlord’s representative] has discharged the burden of proof that, on the balance of probabilities, the carpet required professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy, or that it was not clean and tidy, or that the garden was not maintained at the end of the tenancy.
Accordingly, the claims for carpet cleaning and gardening are dismissed.

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. Window Sill Damage – Submissions [The landlord’s representative]
[The landlord’s representative] claimed compensation for damage to the window sill in the master bedroom, which she discovered during a routine inspection in October 2024. She stated that the sill had been scratched, and although she did not immediately raise the issue with [the tenant/s] at the time, she brought it to his attention following the final inspection in April 2025. [The landlord’s representative] submitted a photograph of the damage, taken on 10 October 2024 at 11.31 pm, which she said was dated and supported her assertion that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
She acknowledged that the pre-tenancy inspection report did not include photos, but maintained that the window sill had been in reasonable condition before [the tenant/s]’s occupancy. The repair was later itemised at $247.25. [the tenant/s]
[The tenant/s] stated that he was unaware of any damage to the window sill until [the landlord’s representative] raised it in April 2025. He disputed causing the damage and said he had no recollection of any activity that could have led to the scratching.
He acknowledged that [The landlord’s representative] had suggested the damage could not have been caused by the installation of curtains, because the curtains were installed in February 2025, after the photograph showing the damage was taken. Conclusions
I find that the damage to the window sill occurred during the tenancy. Although the photo submitted by [the landlord’s representative] was not part of the original pre-tenancy inspection, it was dated 10 October 2024 and showed damage that appeared “fresh” and consistent with recent scratching, rather than long-standing wear.
There is no suggestion that the window sill was damaged prior to the tenancy, and the condition report completed at the start of the tenancy, while lacking photographs, did not note any such issue. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Accordingly, I find that [the landlord’s representative] is entitled to compensation for the cost of repairing the window sill.
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
Both parties have had some success in their applications. The costs should lie where they fall. Name suppression
Both parties have sought name suppression and have each had some success in their applications. I do not consider that publication of their names is in the public interest.
Accordingly, I grant the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297219 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297219 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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