What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301965 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 5301965?

Early Termination Costs: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Paint Use: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Windowsill: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301965?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301965?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12456420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301965 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 5301965?

Early Termination Costs: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Paint Use: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Windowsill: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301965?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301965?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12456420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301965 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301965 — net $340.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Early termination costs	$240.00	Early termination costs
Repairs: bathroom windowsill	$50.00	Repairs: bathroom windowsill
Reimbursement paint use	$50.00	Reimbursement paint use
Net award	$340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$340.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301965 — net $340.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Early termination costs	$240.00	Early termination costs
Repairs: bathroom windowsill	$50.00	Repairs: bathroom windowsill
Reimbursement paint use	$50.00	Reimbursement paint use
Net award	$340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$340.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $340.00 from the bond in accordance with the following table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,700.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
This decision relates to separate claims made by all four tenants and [The landlord/s]. The parties entered into separate tenancy agreements between each tenant and [The landlord/s] respectively under the same conditions for the same tenancy premise. Therefore, as documented it appears there were four separate tenancies. However, in reality, as agreed by all parties, the tenants were joint tenants for the same tenancy. I treat them as such in this decision.
The tenancy was for a fixed term between 23 November 2024 and 31 January 2026. However, in April 2025 the tenants sought to leave early as things had changed for them. It was later agreed that the tenancy would end prematurely on 27 May 2025, the day prior to the new tenancy commencing.
[The landlord/s] has claimed post tenancy costs to be taken from the bond whilst the tenants have claimed compensation and/or exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by [The landlord/s]. The tenants have consented to the claim for damage to the windowsill, therefore that order is recorded by consent.
I discuss each claim separately below bearing in mind the burden of proof which lies with each applicant and is the balance of probabilities. Landlord’s claims

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

[The landlord/s] claims $100 compensation for having to have the premise cleaned after the tenants have vacated. She says the tenants left with a number of areas requiring dusting or wiping including the rangehood, windows and bathroom. As such her daughter was obligated to spend a “couple of hours” cleaning prior to the new tenancy commencing.
The tenants say they left the property reasonably clean and tidy, and the areas noted are minor. They were required to leave at 5pm on their last day and say that if they had been told then of the issues, they could have rectified them. They consider the cost excessive and unfair.
A tenant’s statutory obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 2 It 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008 is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. 3 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean, 4 spotless, 5 or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 Of relevance is the length of the tenancy and how the tenancy was provided at the commencement. The cost claimed must also be reasonable in light of the evidence, therefore, a landlord cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 7
Having assessed the evidence carefully, I accept that there were some minor areas that required wiping, however I do not find that they reduced the overall standard of cleanliness to below reasonable.
Even had I made such a finding, there is no justification for the $100 cost. There is no reliable evidence as to how long it took [The landlord/s]’ daughter to clean the missed areas and the photos themselves only establish approximately an hour’s work at best.
Furthermore, the tenants paid rent for the last day of their tenancy, they were therefore entitled to occupation of the premise until 11:59pm on that day. It would therefore have been reasonable to request they remedy the remaining areas whilst they still had occupation rights.
It is not sensible to commence new tenancies the day after a previous tenancy ends as often work is required in between. Factoring such time in should be a part of the agreement reached between tenants and landlords in such situations where fixed term tenancies are ended early.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 40(1)(e)(iii) and 85 of the RTA, I dismiss the claim.
[The landlord/s] also claims $50 compensation for the tenants using her paint and painting utensils to rectify holes in the wall their shelves had left. She says they mucked her around regarding whether they had completed the repair or not, and when they did repair it, used her belongings. She points to a photo that allegedly shows them using her paint, stirrer and drop cloth, and a photo of the interior of the shed that shows the paint tubs being moved around during the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] says his father did the repairs with his own paint. He categorically denies they used the paint but does say they had to move things around in the shed at times. 3 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6 6 Richards v Scally (above) 7 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523.
The tenants were responsible for the repair which it has been proven they have repaired, and there is no evidence they have not completed it to a workmanlike standard.
The evidence has also established to the required standard that the paint was moved around in the shed. The tenants also accepted they used [The landlord/s]’ carpet cleaner from the shed without consent on another occasion. Further, the letter from [Tenant 1]’s father does not state that he used his own paint.
The evidential standard of the balance of probabilities is, in other words, what is more likely than not. Having assessed the evidence carefully, I am satisfied that it is proven to the required standard that [The landlord/s]’ paint was most likely used. The tenants did not request consent to do so.
Accordingly, I uphold the claim which I consider reasonable 8 in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[The landlord/s] claims compensation for having to replace curtains in [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3]’s room.
To be successful in such a claim, a landlord must prove that the 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.
There are no photos of the curtain lining at the commencement of the tenancy, but the photos at the end show significant black staining. [The landlord/s] says there was no way she would have rented the house out with such staining in situ. She says it does not appear to be mould, more like the curtains have brushed against something very dirty.
The tenants say they did not see the staining at the end or the beginning of the tenancy and have no idea how it got there.
The evidence available to me does not establish the staining occurred during the tenancy. The curtains were approximately seven years old which is towards the end of their expected lifespan according to current depreciation guidelines. The tenants not noticing the staining is significant, but also [The landlord/s] has now rented out the property with the staining in place. She has not incurred any cost in rectifying the issue and given the property is currently tenanted there is not clear confirmation she will. 8 See section 85 RTA
This claim must therefore be dismissed.

Should the tenants pay break lease costs?

[The landlord/s] claims $300 as break lease costs.
She says that she would not have been put to these costs had the tenants kept to their contracted commitment. The amounts she claims are nominal she says given the amount of time she put into agreeing to the tenants’ wish to end the tenancy early.
The tenants initially agreed to pay administration costs however now say the amount claimed is arbitrary and excessive. They sourced the replacement tenants and consider the work [The landlord/s] had to do was minimal.
Pursuant to section 44A of the RTA, a landlord who consents to the assignment of a tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment. They must however provide an itemised account to the tenant of any expenses incurred before seeking them.
The rational for such costs is that in agreeing to amend the contract between the parties the landlord should not be put to financial loss. Fixed term tenancies are entered into for surety for both parties. Both parties rely, and are entitled to rely, on the terms as contracted for. When a tenant attempts to surrender the tenancy, the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable.
[The landlord/s] initially raised the issue with [Tenant 2] generally and this was consented to by text. She then emailed the tenants 9 saying: Admin time for ending tenancy early. My time spent on completing forms, tenancy agreements, liaising, and tenant checks has been at least 10 hours work. Charge to your bond $200, Final inspection, photos and key handover, at least 2 hours Charge to your bond $100.
I am satisfied that, although scant, this summary does meet the statutory requirement of an itemised account. The first charge of $200 at $20 per hour is also reasonable. The second charge however equating to an hourly rate of $50 is not sufficiently justified.
Accordingly, I find that a break lease cost of $240 is just and reasonable in the circumstances and based on the evidence. 9 10 June Tenants’ claims

Did the landlord appoint an agent whilst overseas?

The tenants consider that [The landlord/s] did not engage an agent to deal with their tenancy whilst she was overseas for the duration of the tenancy. They say she remained their primary contact although they did have her daughter’s number who lived nearby but they considered that a casual arrangement.
[The landlord/s] says that her daughter was the local contact for the tenants; effectively her agent. She was familiar with the house, lives locally and responded promptly when needed. Her view is that at no point were the tenants prejudiced by her being overseas as she responded quickly whenever they got in touch. They had her daughter and the builder’s contact details and never complained about the situation.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand; see section 16A(1) RTA. An agent, pursuant to section 2 of the RTA is any person who acts in that person’s capacity as landlord.
[The landlord/s]’ daughter did respond to the tenants’ requests, undertook the final inspection and was available to assist them with their tenancy. I therefore am satisfied on the evidence that she was acting in capacity as agent and as such, that [The landlord/s] did not breach section 16A of the RTA.
The concerns that arose post tenancy regarding the bond 10 appear to have occurred from miscommunication and disagreement rather than as a result of [The landlord/s] residing overseas. There is no evidence of issues arising during the tenancy as a result of her arrangements.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord unlawfully attempt to recover expenses?

The tenants are of the view that [The landlord/s] has breached section 44A of the RTA by attempting to recover expenses incurred in respect to the tenancy assignment without providing an itemised account.
As I have found above that [The landlord/s] did provide an itemised account, this claim must be dismissed. 10 Which were the tenants’ main concerns Did the landlord attempt to recover payment of funds exceeding the tenants’ liability?
[The tenant/s] claim [The landlord/s] demanded payment of an amount that exceeds their liability for careless damage.
Where a tenant damages the premises carelessly, and the damage 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 not covered by insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
A landlord cannot demand or accept payment of an amount that exceeds the tenant's liability. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 49D and Schedule 1A RTA.
There is no evidence that [The landlord/s] sought payment of amounts that would have exceeded the tenants’ liability under the RTA. All of her claims were particularly modest and had grounds to be considered. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord request the tenants to undertake unsafe practices?

During a storm the aerial from the roof broke off. It became hooked on a wire overhanging a courtyard. When notified of this [The landlord/s] asked if the tenants could unhook it, perhaps using a broom, so it did not blow down at a future time and cause more damage. The tenants did attempt to do so but were unsuccessful. A builder was therefore contracted to attend to it.
The tenants now say that her request was unreasonable and unsafe.
I find this claim disingenuous. A request was made to which the tenants were entitled to refuse. They raised no concern at the time and there was no evidence they were in any danger in attempting to dislodge the aerial. When advised it was not possible, [The landlord/s] immediately arranged a builder.
This claim is unfounded and as such dismissed.

Should other orders be made?

As all parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
All parties have applied for suppression in this case and as they were all successful to an extent in their positions, I approve their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301965 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301965 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Should the tenants pay break lease costs?

Did the landlord appoint an agent whilst overseas?

Did the landlord unlawfully attempt to recover expenses?

Did the landlord request the tenants to undertake unsafe practices?

Should other orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Should the tenants pay break lease costs?

Did the landlord appoint an agent whilst overseas?

Did the landlord unlawfully attempt to recover expenses?

Did the landlord request the tenants to undertake unsafe practices?

Should other orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions