What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310619 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 5310619?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $416.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $409.98 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Carpet Excess: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310619?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12766817-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310619 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 5310619?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $416.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $409.98 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Carpet Excess: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310619?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12766817-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310619 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310619 — net $397.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$416.95	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: curtains lounge / dining room	$409.98	Cleaning: curtains lounge / dining room
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$172.50	Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Replace furnishings: damaged curtains bedrooms	$300.00	Replace furnishings: damaged curtains bedrooms
Repairs: carpet excess	$1,150.00	Repairs: carpet excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$397.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$397.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310619 — net $397.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$416.95	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: curtains lounge / dining room	$409.98	Cleaning: curtains lounge / dining room
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$172.50	Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Replace furnishings: damaged curtains bedrooms	$300.00	Replace furnishings: damaged curtains bedrooms
Repairs: carpet excess	$1,150.00	Repairs: carpet excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$397.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$397.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $397.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared. [The tenant’s guarantor] who is the tenant’s guarantor also appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2024 and was for a fixed term ending 26 May 2025. On 22 October 2025, the landlord filed a claim for general cleaning, carpet cleaning, curtain cleaning, rubbish removal, a missing garage remote, and damage to the curtains, walls, and carpet. General cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the inside of the property reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish, specifically rubbish in the gardens. The landlord also claims that the tenant failed to leave the carpet throughout the property and the curtains in the lounge reasonably clean. The landlord states that a garage remote control provided at the commencement of the tenancy was not returned.
The property was built in the 1970s and consists of three bedrooms, a kitchen, dining/living room, bathroom, toilet, washhouse, and garage. There are no photographs showing the property at the commencement of the tenancy. However, there is a pre-tenancy checklist which records that the property had been freshly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy, including new curtains and carpet throughout.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing the inside of the property and the grounds. The food scraps bin contains food residue, the general and glass recycling bins have items in them, and the red council bin has some rubbish inside. The landlord has also produced photographs of the carpet and the curtains in the lounge showing stains and soiling.
The tenant accepted that the property had been freshly renovated. They stated that they spent time cleaning the property on the last day of the tenancy, which was also their moving day. The tenant questioned whether the property had not been left in a “reasonably” clean condition. The tenant accepted that there were stains and soiling to the carpet, but they had not been aware of the soiling to the curtains in the lounge.
They stated that the property is close to a secondary school and that there had been issues with rubbish either blowing onto the property or being thrown over the fence, and that the bins had been kicked over.
The tenant accepted that they had not returned the remote control which had gone missing.
The landlord states that the property is opposite to one of the entrances of the school and is fenced. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return keys and similar devises. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
Considering the photographs, there are clearly areas of the property that the tenant has either missed or, despite their best efforts, has not cleaned to a reasonable standard. A tenant is obliged to return the rubbish and recycling bins empty, on the basis that they were provided empty at the start of the tenancy. The nature of the rubbish in the gardens, and the fact that the majority is close to the house and deck, suggests it is more likely than not attributable to the tenant’s occupation.
The curtains in the lounge were new at the commencement of the tenancy. Although the soiling is not significant, it is nevertheless present. The carpet has a large stain in front of the ranchslider in the dining room near the kitchen, as well as what can otherwise be described as minor soiling or staining in the lounge, hallway, and each of the bedrooms.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the curtains in the lounge and dining room, and the carpet. The amount claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal is $416.95. This amount is not itemised, although based on the evidence, it appears to be a modest claim for the cleaning alone. The remainder of the cleaning invoice, $409.98, is for curtain removal and cleaning. I also award the landlord $240.00 for carpet cleaning, and $172.50 to replace the remote control.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that several stains to the carpet were unable to be removed, necessitating the replacement of all the carpet. The landlord also states that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls throughout the property and damage to the curtains in each of the bedrooms, which is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is claiming $212.75 to repair the damage to the walls, and $300.00 to replace the damaged curtains. The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $1,150.00 per claim. The landlord is seeking four excesses, for the carpet in the dining/living room, hallway, and each of the three bedrooms, totalling $4,600.00. Curtains
As stated, the curtains were new at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced photographs showing the backs of the curtains in each bedroom. The landlord states the damage is consistent with having been clawed by an animal. During an inspection, the landlord discovered a cat inside the property and bowls of cat food in the kitchen, and states that the damage was likely caused by a cat.
The tenant states that during the tenancy, cats, either belonging to previous tenants, or their neighbours, regularly entered the property through open windows, in the process damaging the backs of the curtains in each room. The tenant stated that the food bowls were an effort to lure the cats inside and then trap and rehome them. Walls
The landlord has produced photographs showing minor damage to the walls in the form of nicks, dents, and scrapes.
The tenant accepted that this damage had occurred during the tenancy and stated it had likely occurred while they were moving out. Carpet
The landlord claims that the carpet cleaning failed to remove stains and that the carpet required replacing. The landlord has produced photographs of the stains taken on 04 June 2025, which they state were taken after the carpet was cleaned. Apart from the stain in front of the ranchslider, the landlord did not take any other photographs of the carpet prior to cleaning. The landlord stated that the photograph of the stain in front of the ranchslider had been sent to the tenant on 27 May 2025.
The landlord produced a brief, unsigned statement from the carpet cleaner dated 24 July 2025, stating: “I found numerous stains in the lounge, dining, hallway and 3 bedrooms that I could not remove with the carpet cleaning process”.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the largest of the stains, which is located in front of the ranchslider near the kitchen, and therefore accepts liability for one of the four excesses claimed. The tenant stated that during the tenancy, they were given permission to install an extra fridge, which they placed near the ranchslider close to the kitchen. They state that, unfortunately, the fridge leaked and damaged the carpet beneath. The landlord cannot recall giving the tenant permission to place a fridge on the carpet.
The tenant challenges their liability for the other excesses claimed. They state that the photographs relied on to show staining not removed by cleaning were taken before any cleaning was attempted, and therefore do not accurately depict the true condition of the carpet for the purposes of the damage claim.
The tenant states that the photographs the landlord claims to have taken after cleaning were, in fact, taken prior to cleaning. The tenant states they have experience in forensic analysis and have produced a comparison analysis of the two photographs of the stain in front of the ranchslider, showing they are identical. They submit this casts doubt on the landlord’s claim that the stains could not be removed.
The tenant argues that the statement from the carpet cleaner is too general.
The tenant stated that they had attempted to visit the property to inspect the carpet, but the request had been declined. They then asked an associate to respond to an advertisement by the landlord offering the property for rent, with instructions to pay particular attention to the condition of the carpet.
The associate provided a signed written statement and gave oral evidence. They state that they visited the property on 19 July 2025. During the viewing, they noticed a large stain in front of the ranchslider. Upon raising the presence of the stain with the agent, they were advised that, if their application to rent the property was successful, the stain would be noted in the pre tenancy inspection report. The witnesses stated that they had been into each room accompanied by the agent and had paid close attention to the carpet, which they observed to “be free of visible stains or damage”, apart from the stain by the ranchslider. They stated that the agent appeared to agree with this observation.
The landlord called the agent concerned. The agent stated they could not recall the viewing, as they conducted many, and that they would not have accompanied the viewer through the property as they would not have had time. Under re- examination the agent then recalled that the carpet had marks throughout. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis and decision
Concerning the damaged curtains, I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If cats regularly entered the property and scratched the curtains, causing damage, a reasonably prudent tenant would have taken steps to address this before damage occurred to every curtain. The amount claimed is reasonable. I make no deduction for betterment.
I am satisfied that the damage to the walls occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I consider it likely occurred when the tenant was moving and is the result of carelessness. The amount claimed is reasonable and is less than the insurance excess that may have applied.
The onus is on the landlord to establish, more likely than not, that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy by staining or soiling that could not be removed by cleaning.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the stain on the carpet in front of the ranchslider. A reasonably prudent tenant would not place such an appliance on a carpeted floor without additional protection underneath. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant is liable for the replacement of the rest of the carpet.
The photographs provided by the landlord are undated. The tenant has established that both the “before” and “after” photograph of the stain in front of the ranchslider is in fact the same and was more likely taken prior to cleaning. This casts doubt on the landlord’s claim that the stains depicted are ones irremovable by cleaning. I accept the tenant’s submission that the carpet cleaner’s statement is general and does not identify which stains were examined or which areas remained affected after cleaning.
I find the evidence of the associate more reliable than the agent, who initially stated that they could not recall the viewing, but then later stated that they could recall staining on the carpet. The associate of the tenant had visited the property with the express intention of closely inspecting the carpet.
Given the uncertainty surrounding when the photographs were taken, and the evidence of the associate, which I find to be reliable, I am not satisfied to the required standard that the landlord has established the tenant is liable for the three other excesses claimed
Regarding betterment. Carpet in residential properties has an estimated useful life span of 10 – 12 years. The carpet in the dining room / lounge / hallway was a year old at the end of the tenancy. I make no deduction for betterment. Accordingly, I award the landlord the one excess of $1,150.00. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed both parties have been substantially successful either bringing or defending the claims. Both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310619 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310619 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions