What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321420 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 5321420?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $968.28 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321420?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12567767-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321420 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 5321420?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $968.28 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321420?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12567767-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321420 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321420 — net $677.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 June 2025	$968.28	Rent arrears to 14 June 2025
Cleaning	$375.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: replacement door	$150.00	Repairs: replacement door
Repairs: door jamb	$276.00	Repairs: door jamb
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$677.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$677.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ named, identifying details and the address of the tenancy premises.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $873.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2019 and ended on 24 June 2025 as the result of the landlord giving the tenants a 90 day notice. The tenants vacated on 5 June 2025 as they had found another tenancy, however the keys were not returned to the landlord before 24 June.
The tenancy premises has 4 bedrooms and a large open plan kitchen, dining and lounge. There is a bathroom and a shower room.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants told the landlord they were vacating the premises 1 week before they did; a friend had told them that they no longer needed to pay rent. However the tenants did not give the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy sooner than under the landlord’s 90 day notice. The tenants are liable to pay rent to the end of the tenancy as set out in the landlord’s notice.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims $413.57 in cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed reflects the tenants had carried out most of the cleaning in the property to a reasonable standard as required by the RTA. However some areas were missed, including the ranchslider, areas in the laundry, the cleaning product used in the oven, and fly spots in most rooms. I find the window sills, particularly in the bedrooms need painting and the condition of the sills has added to the cleaning. I have reduced the amount awarded in recognition of this.
The carpets were cleaned as they were stained at the end of the tenancy. Unfortunately the stains were not removed as a result of the cleaning.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Painting/repairs
The landlord claims $1,702.00 damage to the painted walls and wallpaper in the 4 bedrooms.
The tenants dispute damage was caused to the walls during the tenancy, and maintain the damage was existing at the start of the tenancy. The pre-tenancy inspection report supports the tenants’ view. It records walls in the bedrooms as having the following existing damage at the start of the tenancy: Bedroom 1light scuffing; approx. 50 10x10 cm plaster patches Bedroom 2 2 screws in the walls; 1 25x25 plaster patch; 20 1x1 cm chips; 2 5x1cm chips Bedroom 31 50x50 cm plaster patch; 24 5x1 cm wallpaper tears; 1 7x30 cm wallpaper tear; 1 7x7 cm plaster patch; 1 7x50 cm plaster patch Bedroom 4 light scuffing; 2x plastic hooks
The amount of existing damage at the start of the tenancy leads me to the conclusion that the tenants have probably not further damaged the walls, and that if they have, their damage is minor compared to the existing damage. In any event, I find the reasonable life span of painted and wallpapered walls in tenancy premises is 10 years. Here the age of the painted walls and wallpaper significantly exceeds 10 years. I am not convinced the tenants have accelerated the need to have the walls painted or wallpapered.
I find that any payment towards the repainting and wallpapering of the walls by the tenants would put the landlord in a better position when depreciation is taken into account. For the above reasons the claim is dismissed. Damages to the door - master bedroom
The tenants accept damage was caused to the door and door jamb to the master bedroom. The door is a wood hollow core door. The landlord has not claimed replacement of a similar type of door but has mitigated their loss by claiming for a white painted door. New handles are also required.
In considering better and depreciation I find the door jamb has a long life expectancy, similar to the life of the structure of the house. For that reason I find the tenants are liable to pay the cost to repair the door jamb ($276.00 inc gst).
I find a wood hollow core door has a reasonable life expectancy up to 30 years. Here the door is well passed this age and its reasonable economic life expectancy has expired. However I find the door was in reasonable co9ndition at the start of the tenancy and that the damage caused during the tenancy has accelerated the need for the door to be replaced. Accordingly I award $150.00 towards the cost of a replacement door. Carpet replacement.
The carpet is stained throughout the property. The stainsd were not removed by the carpet cleaning. I am satisfied that the carpet needs to be replaced.
The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. I find the reasonable life span of carpet in residential premises is generally 10 years and that this carpet has 40% of its life span remaining. The cost to replace the carpet is $5,240.09. The appropriate compensation taking better and depreciation into account is $2,096.04.
The landlord has been successful in making an insurance claim. The landlord’s insurance has agreed to replace the carpet less an excess of $500.00. The landlord’s claim is reduced to the excess ($500.00).
The landlord’s settlement of the claim by its insurer (being $4,740.09 for the cost of replacing the carpet less the excess) is more than the landlord’s entitlement to compensation after depreciation is considered ($2,096.04). However the damage caused during the tenancy has accelerated the need to replace the carpet. Given that the stains are throughout the house and the carpet needs to be replaced in all rooms I find it reasonable that the tenant is liable for the excess of $500.00. Filing Fee
The landlord has been mainly successful in its claim and reimbursement of the filing fee is granted. Suppression
The landlord has applied for suppression. Suppression is granted as the landlord has been mainly successful in its claim.
The tenants have also applied for suppression. The tenants have been successful in defending parts of the claim. The Tribunal on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, can order that particulars of any identifying particulars, witness or parties not be published. I consider in this case the interests of the tenants outweigh any public interest and grant them suppression also.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321420 — net $677.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 June 2025	$968.28	Rent arrears to 14 June 2025
Cleaning	$375.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: replacement door	$150.00	Repairs: replacement door
Repairs: door jamb	$276.00	Repairs: door jamb
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$677.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$677.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ named, identifying details and the address of the tenancy premises.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $873.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2019 and ended on 24 June 2025 as the result of the landlord giving the tenants a 90 day notice. The tenants vacated on 5 June 2025 as they had found another tenancy, however the keys were not returned to the landlord before 24 June.
The tenancy premises has 4 bedrooms and a large open plan kitchen, dining and lounge. There is a bathroom and a shower room.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants told the landlord they were vacating the premises 1 week before they did; a friend had told them that they no longer needed to pay rent. However the tenants did not give the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy sooner than under the landlord’s 90 day notice. The tenants are liable to pay rent to the end of the tenancy as set out in the landlord’s notice.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims $413.57 in cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed reflects the tenants had carried out most of the cleaning in the property to a reasonable standard as required by the RTA. However some areas were missed, including the ranchslider, areas in the laundry, the cleaning product used in the oven, and fly spots in most rooms. I find the window sills, particularly in the bedrooms need painting and the condition of the sills has added to the cleaning. I have reduced the amount awarded in recognition of this.
The carpets were cleaned as they were stained at the end of the tenancy. Unfortunately the stains were not removed as a result of the cleaning.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Painting/repairs
The landlord claims $1,702.00 damage to the painted walls and wallpaper in the 4 bedrooms.
The tenants dispute damage was caused to the walls during the tenancy, and maintain the damage was existing at the start of the tenancy. The pre-tenancy inspection report supports the tenants’ view. It records walls in the bedrooms as having the following existing damage at the start of the tenancy: Bedroom 1light scuffing; approx. 50 10x10 cm plaster patches Bedroom 2 2 screws in the walls; 1 25x25 plaster patch; 20 1x1 cm chips; 2 5x1cm chips Bedroom 31 50x50 cm plaster patch; 24 5x1 cm wallpaper tears; 1 7x30 cm wallpaper tear; 1 7x7 cm plaster patch; 1 7x50 cm plaster patch Bedroom 4 light scuffing; 2x plastic hooks
The amount of existing damage at the start of the tenancy leads me to the conclusion that the tenants have probably not further damaged the walls, and that if they have, their damage is minor compared to the existing damage. In any event, I find the reasonable life span of painted and wallpapered walls in tenancy premises is 10 years. Here the age of the painted walls and wallpaper significantly exceeds 10 years. I am not convinced the tenants have accelerated the need to have the walls painted or wallpapered.
I find that any payment towards the repainting and wallpapering of the walls by the tenants would put the landlord in a better position when depreciation is taken into account. For the above reasons the claim is dismissed. Damages to the door - master bedroom
The tenants accept damage was caused to the door and door jamb to the master bedroom. The door is a wood hollow core door. The landlord has not claimed replacement of a similar type of door but has mitigated their loss by claiming for a white painted door. New handles are also required.
In considering better and depreciation I find the door jamb has a long life expectancy, similar to the life of the structure of the house. For that reason I find the tenants are liable to pay the cost to repair the door jamb ($276.00 inc gst).
I find a wood hollow core door has a reasonable life expectancy up to 30 years. Here the door is well passed this age and its reasonable economic life expectancy has expired. However I find the door was in reasonable co9ndition at the start of the tenancy and that the damage caused during the tenancy has accelerated the need for the door to be replaced. Accordingly I award $150.00 towards the cost of a replacement door. Carpet replacement.
The carpet is stained throughout the property. The stainsd were not removed by the carpet cleaning. I am satisfied that the carpet needs to be replaced.
The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. I find the reasonable life span of carpet in residential premises is generally 10 years and that this carpet has 40% of its life span remaining. The cost to replace the carpet is $5,240.09. The appropriate compensation taking better and depreciation into account is $2,096.04.
The landlord has been successful in making an insurance claim. The landlord’s insurance has agreed to replace the carpet less an excess of $500.00. The landlord’s claim is reduced to the excess ($500.00).
The landlord’s settlement of the claim by its insurer (being $4,740.09 for the cost of replacing the carpet less the excess) is more than the landlord’s entitlement to compensation after depreciation is considered ($2,096.04). However the damage caused during the tenancy has accelerated the need to replace the carpet. Given that the stains are throughout the house and the carpet needs to be replaced in all rooms I find it reasonable that the tenant is liable for the excess of $500.00. Filing Fee
The landlord has been mainly successful in its claim and reimbursement of the filing fee is granted. Suppression
The landlord has applied for suppression. Suppression is granted as the landlord has been mainly successful in its claim.
The tenants have also applied for suppression. The tenants have been successful in defending parts of the claim. The Tribunal on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, can order that particulars of any identifying particulars, witness or parties not be published. I consider in this case the interests of the tenants outweigh any public interest and grant them suppression also.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321420 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321420 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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