What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329701 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 5329701?

Cleaning: $621.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $163.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Toilet Seat And Repaint Wind…: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $105.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329701 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 5329701?

Cleaning: $621.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $163.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Toilet Seat And Repaint Wind…: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $105.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858776-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329701 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329701 — net $965.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$621.00		Cleaning
Replacement curtains	$163.26		Replacement curtains
Rubbish removal	$105.80		Rubbish removal
Replace toilet seat and repaint window sill	$325.00		Replace toilet seat and repaint window sill
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Reimburse insurance excess paid		$250.00	Reimburse insurance excess paid
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,243.06	$278.00
Net award	$965.06
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.06

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord’s and the tenant’s name and the identifying details of the tenancy including the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $965.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $965.06 [The tenant/s]: $1,034.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
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 landlord’s claim for compensation is for cleaning including carpet cleaning; removal of rubbish; curtain replacement; replacement of the carpet; replacement of the toilet seat and painting.
The tenant claims reimbursement of $250.00 she has paid towards the cost to replace the carpet.
The tenancy commenced on 20 August 2021 and ended just under 4 years later on 28 July 2025. The premises has 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom. The carpet was new at the commencement of 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, The landlord claims $897.00 for cleaning, being $448.50 for general cleaning; $207.00 for carpet cleaning; $69.00 for oven clean; $172.50 for food splatters on walls and ceilings. I award a total of $621.00 for the following reasons: a) From the evidence I am satisfied the carpet needed to be cleaned as there were minor stains throughout and that the amount claimed is reasonable. b) I find the photographs provided the landlord establish that some cleaning was needed to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Tenants are not expected to leave the premises in a pristine condition, and it is expected that landlords are likely to do more cleaning before premises are re-let. I find the amount claimed for general cleaning is more than is reasonable for the property to be cleaned to the standard the tenant is required to leave it in at the end of the tenancy. I find $172.50 is reasonable compensation for the cleaning required based on the evidence presented. c) I find the photographs show the oven did require some cleaning and find $69.00 is reasonable for the work required. d) The tenant accepts the costs to remove food splatters ($172.50.
The tenant accepts she did not remove all rubbish and is liable for the amount claimed ($105.80). and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims $217.68 to replace the curtains in the three bedrooms on the basis that they were mouldy. The landlord’s photographs establish that the curtains had some mould and stains. The curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. I am satisfied that curtains of this nature have a reasonable life span of around 7 years in tenancy premises. That means the remaining likely useable life span of the curtains is around three years. In depreciating the cost of the replacement curtains I find this equates to $163.26, being 3/7ths of the cost. I find this is no more than the likely cost the landlord would pay to clean the curtains, being less than $55.00 per curtain. Therefore this amount is awarded.
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. Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess ($850) for replacement of the carpet? Is the tenant entitled to a refund of the $250.00 paid towards the excess?
On 27 August 2024 the Armed Offender’s Squad (AOS) arrived at the premises looking for the tenant’s ex-partner, who they believed was at the premises. They deployed a distraction device, also referred to as a flash bomb, in a bedroom which caused burn damage to the carpet. The landlord made a claim to his insurer who agreed to pay out the cost to replace the carpet in the bedroom less the excess ($850.00).
The landlord maintains the tenant is liable for the damage on the basis that a tenant is liable for damage caused by anyone visiting at the premises. The landlord believes the AOS would only have been at the premises if they have good information that the person they were looking for was there. The landlord presented an email from the Police sent to the landlord/owner which states: “Although [the tenant] claimed [he] was not present, her delay in exiting the address, her strange behaviour outside the address and lack of engagement with Detective present (sic), raised suspicion levels he was present. A closed door to the bedroom where the distraction device was deployed was the only closed door inside the address. Post to [his] arrest, he advised Police he had been at the address and in contact with [the tenant] but not on the day armed Police went to [the address].”
The tenant disagrees with the contents of the Police email. She says she was co-operative and that the woman police officer that was with her outside the property thanked her for her co-operation. She had no knowledge AOS was going to deploy a slash bomb before it was set off. The tenant confirmed that her ex-partner had not been at the premises that day and that she had not heard from him for months before the incident. She believes the AOS came to the premises because he is the father of her son.
As set out above, it is not the intention of section 41, RTA that tenants are liable for the damage done by anyone who is at the premises. Tenants are only liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Here there is nothing to suggest that the AOS were at the premises with the permission of the tenant.
If I made the order the landlord is seeking it would mean that a tenant would be liable for any damage caused by the Police, or any other government agency, or any other person that entered the tenancy premises. That would result in tenants being unfairly made to pay for damage caused by people they have not invited into their homes or who are there other than with their permission.
Accordingly I find the tenant is not liable to pay for the damage caused by the AOS.
The tenant has paid $250.00 towards the landlord’s excess. I find the tenant’s agreement to pay that amount is invalid. Section 11, RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy which is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA, particularly where it waives the tenant’s rights, shall be of no effect.
Accordingly the landlord’s claim for $600 towards the landlord’s insurance excess is dismissed and under the tenant’s claim the landlord is liable to refund the $250.00 the tenant has paid to the tenant. Is the tenant liable to pay the cost to replace the toilet seat and the repaint the window sill? [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant said the toilet seat was broken at the start of the tenancy and that she raised the issue at the start of the tenancy. The landlord disputes that is the case. There is no evidence that the tenant raised the broken toilet seat during the tenancy. That is, I find it unlikely that a tenant is going to contend with a broken toilet seat for 4 years without asking for it to be fixed.
The window sill in the kitchen was damaged as a result of the tenant putting a bottle of dishwash liquid on the sill throughout the tenancy.
The landlord claims $474.95 for this work. The property manager has its own employee who carried out this work. The invoice does not break down the cost of the toilet seat, the materials for the window sill or the labour required for each job. The labour charged ($80.50 + gst) per hour appears more than reasonable for essentially handyman tasks.
I find the reasonable cost for this work is $325.00: a) $170.00 for the toilet seat, being $65.00 to buy the seat and $105.00 for labour (1.5 hours labour to source and replace the seat, at $70.00 an hour), and b) $155.00 for the painting of the sill, being $50.00 for materials and $105.00 for labour (1.5 hours to source, prepare and paint with 2 coats). Other matters
Filing fee: Both the landlord and the tenant have been successful in their claims, therefore reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded for both parties.
Suppression: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and the tenants names and all identifying details of the tenancy including the tenancy address. In doing so I am satisfied that the decision does not raise any issues of significant interest to the public and that there is no public interest benefit in publishing the parties’ names and details of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329701 — net $965.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$621.00		Cleaning
Replacement curtains	$163.26		Replacement curtains
Rubbish removal	$105.80		Rubbish removal
Replace toilet seat and repaint window sill	$325.00		Replace toilet seat and repaint window sill
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Reimburse insurance excess paid		$250.00	Reimburse insurance excess paid
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,243.06	$278.00
Net award	$965.06
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.06

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord’s and the tenant’s name and the identifying details of the tenancy including the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $965.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $965.06 [The tenant/s]: $1,034.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
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 landlord’s claim for compensation is for cleaning including carpet cleaning; removal of rubbish; curtain replacement; replacement of the carpet; replacement of the toilet seat and painting.
The tenant claims reimbursement of $250.00 she has paid towards the cost to replace the carpet.
The tenancy commenced on 20 August 2021 and ended just under 4 years later on 28 July 2025. The premises has 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom. The carpet was new at the commencement of 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, The landlord claims $897.00 for cleaning, being $448.50 for general cleaning; $207.00 for carpet cleaning; $69.00 for oven clean; $172.50 for food splatters on walls and ceilings. I award a total of $621.00 for the following reasons: a) From the evidence I am satisfied the carpet needed to be cleaned as there were minor stains throughout and that the amount claimed is reasonable. b) I find the photographs provided the landlord establish that some cleaning was needed to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Tenants are not expected to leave the premises in a pristine condition, and it is expected that landlords are likely to do more cleaning before premises are re-let. I find the amount claimed for general cleaning is more than is reasonable for the property to be cleaned to the standard the tenant is required to leave it in at the end of the tenancy. I find $172.50 is reasonable compensation for the cleaning required based on the evidence presented. c) I find the photographs show the oven did require some cleaning and find $69.00 is reasonable for the work required. d) The tenant accepts the costs to remove food splatters ($172.50.
The tenant accepts she did not remove all rubbish and is liable for the amount claimed ($105.80). and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims $217.68 to replace the curtains in the three bedrooms on the basis that they were mouldy. The landlord’s photographs establish that the curtains had some mould and stains. The curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. I am satisfied that curtains of this nature have a reasonable life span of around 7 years in tenancy premises. That means the remaining likely useable life span of the curtains is around three years. In depreciating the cost of the replacement curtains I find this equates to $163.26, being 3/7ths of the cost. I find this is no more than the likely cost the landlord would pay to clean the curtains, being less than $55.00 per curtain. Therefore this amount is awarded.
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. Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess ($850) for replacement of the carpet? Is the tenant entitled to a refund of the $250.00 paid towards the excess?
On 27 August 2024 the Armed Offender’s Squad (AOS) arrived at the premises looking for the tenant’s ex-partner, who they believed was at the premises. They deployed a distraction device, also referred to as a flash bomb, in a bedroom which caused burn damage to the carpet. The landlord made a claim to his insurer who agreed to pay out the cost to replace the carpet in the bedroom less the excess ($850.00).
The landlord maintains the tenant is liable for the damage on the basis that a tenant is liable for damage caused by anyone visiting at the premises. The landlord believes the AOS would only have been at the premises if they have good information that the person they were looking for was there. The landlord presented an email from the Police sent to the landlord/owner which states: “Although [the tenant] claimed [he] was not present, her delay in exiting the address, her strange behaviour outside the address and lack of engagement with Detective present (sic), raised suspicion levels he was present. A closed door to the bedroom where the distraction device was deployed was the only closed door inside the address. Post to [his] arrest, he advised Police he had been at the address and in contact with [the tenant] but not on the day armed Police went to [the address].”
The tenant disagrees with the contents of the Police email. She says she was co-operative and that the woman police officer that was with her outside the property thanked her for her co-operation. She had no knowledge AOS was going to deploy a slash bomb before it was set off. The tenant confirmed that her ex-partner had not been at the premises that day and that she had not heard from him for months before the incident. She believes the AOS came to the premises because he is the father of her son.
As set out above, it is not the intention of section 41, RTA that tenants are liable for the damage done by anyone who is at the premises. Tenants are only liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Here there is nothing to suggest that the AOS were at the premises with the permission of the tenant.
If I made the order the landlord is seeking it would mean that a tenant would be liable for any damage caused by the Police, or any other government agency, or any other person that entered the tenancy premises. That would result in tenants being unfairly made to pay for damage caused by people they have not invited into their homes or who are there other than with their permission.
Accordingly I find the tenant is not liable to pay for the damage caused by the AOS.
The tenant has paid $250.00 towards the landlord’s excess. I find the tenant’s agreement to pay that amount is invalid. Section 11, RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy which is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA, particularly where it waives the tenant’s rights, shall be of no effect.
Accordingly the landlord’s claim for $600 towards the landlord’s insurance excess is dismissed and under the tenant’s claim the landlord is liable to refund the $250.00 the tenant has paid to the tenant. Is the tenant liable to pay the cost to replace the toilet seat and the repaint the window sill? [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant said the toilet seat was broken at the start of the tenancy and that she raised the issue at the start of the tenancy. The landlord disputes that is the case. There is no evidence that the tenant raised the broken toilet seat during the tenancy. That is, I find it unlikely that a tenant is going to contend with a broken toilet seat for 4 years without asking for it to be fixed.
The window sill in the kitchen was damaged as a result of the tenant putting a bottle of dishwash liquid on the sill throughout the tenancy.
The landlord claims $474.95 for this work. The property manager has its own employee who carried out this work. The invoice does not break down the cost of the toilet seat, the materials for the window sill or the labour required for each job. The labour charged ($80.50 + gst) per hour appears more than reasonable for essentially handyman tasks.
I find the reasonable cost for this work is $325.00: a) $170.00 for the toilet seat, being $65.00 to buy the seat and $105.00 for labour (1.5 hours labour to source and replace the seat, at $70.00 an hour), and b) $155.00 for the painting of the sill, being $50.00 for materials and $105.00 for labour (1.5 hours to source, prepare and paint with 2 coats). Other matters
Filing fee: Both the landlord and the tenant have been successful in their claims, therefore reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded for both parties.
Suppression: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and the tenants names and all identifying details of the tenancy including the tenancy address. In doing so I am satisfied that the decision does not raise any issues of significant interest to the public and that there is no public interest benefit in publishing the parties’ names and details of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329701 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329701 — Cleanliness

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions