Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5332359 — Cleanliness
Decided 9 Mar 2026 · Published 9 Mar 2026 · Application 5332359
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy began on 8 July 2022 and ended on 30 June 2025.
- The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond.
- The landlord’s application sought water rates, repairs, and compensation for missing chattels.
- The first hearing took place by phone on 12 November 2025. Adjudicator Ryken made an order adjourning the hearing, requesting a full day in-person hearing in [Event location suppressed], and giving directions to the landlord for submitting further evidence. Adjudicator Ryken’s order also clarified the landlord’s claims.
- The full day hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 28 January 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. [The tenant/s] was assisted by her sister, with the consent of the Tribunal. Water rates
- The property is in a block of units. There is one main water meter and a sub- meter for each unit.
- [The tenant/s] said that Ms Blair’s water invoices were confusing, inconsistent, and difficult to follow.
- [The tenant/s] said that she accepted the landlord’s claim for ‘final water’ – water use from the end of the last [Council] invoice to the end of the tenancy. The amount of final water is $202.80.
- Her concern was about calculation of water rates for the period from when Ms Blair took over management of the tenancy until the last [Council] invoice in February 2025.
- For these proceedings Ms Blair provided a detailed breakdown of the water rates charges, how they were calculated, and a record of [The tenant/s]’s payments towards water during the tenancy.
- With the benefit of this clear overview, I am satisfied that Ms Blair has correctly calculated total water consumption of $1,640.86 and total payments of $1,283.62, leaving a shortfall of $357.24.
- The total amount owed for water is $560.04. Repairs, replacement of chattels etc Window hinge snapped off
- This pertains to part of the laundry window, which the parties described as a ‘pin’ that broke during the tenancy.
- [The tenant/s] agreed that the damage happened during her tenancy. She said that: a. The front door was ‘pushed to’ but not secured because of a problem with the handle (discussed below). b. The damage happened on a windy day. c. The wind blew the front door open. d. The gust went quickly through the unit, which [The tenant/s] said was like a wind tunnel. e. The window in the laundry was ajar. The gust pushed it out violently, snapping the pin. f. She was present when this happened and observed it.
- Ms Blair said that [The tenant/s]’s description of how the damage occurred was not plausible.
- The pin has not worn out through ordinary wear and tear. Something violent happened to it, causing it to break. This is damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurred during the tenancy.
- However, tenants are not liable for damage that was not caused by any careless or intentional action by them or by someone for whom they are responsible.
- The only direct evidence I have about how the pin broke is [The tenant/s]’s oral evidence, as detailed above.
- I accept that oral evidence.
- Therefore, I find that [The tenant/s] is not liable for this cost. Window frame smoke stains
- The claim seeks compensation for painting a window frame. The landlord alleges that the window frame was stained by cigarette smoke.
- The photograph does not show the damage that Ms Blair alleges.
- This part of the claim is not proven. Wall pin holes
- [The tenant/s] acknowledged that she pinned up an insect screen. The photographs show numerous small pin holes in the wall above the door in the laundry.
- This is damage beyond fair wear and tear.
- The repair invoice shows one hour of labour for remedial work ($40 plus GST). The claim is fair and reasonable. Carpet rug missing
- There was a carpet rug with overlocked edges in the property at the start of the tenancy. It was missing at the end.
- [The tenant/s] said that the rug got wet during the tenancy and she disposed of it.
- As a tenant [The tenant/s] is liable for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with her consent.
- Ms Blair had a price of $936.80 for an equivalent replacement.
- At the hearing Ms Blair said that she obtained an updated quote for carpet replacement from [Flooring company] (discussed below) and the quote includes using an ‘offcut’ from the carpet to make a new rug, at no cost other than the cost of overlocking the edges, which is $85.00.
- The claim is proven. Oven manual
- [The tenant/s] accidentally took the oven manual with her when she left the tenancy.
- Ms Blair printed off a replacement at the local library. Her claim for $5.00 for printing costs is fair. Carpet replacement
- At the hearing Ms Blair said that the price of $9,025.00 to replace the carpet was superseded by an updated quote from [Flooring company] for $6,700.00.
- Ms Blair has an insurance claim underway for replacement of the carpet. If the claim is accepted the insurer will apply an excess of $650.00 per room.
- Ms Blair argued that it was necessary to replace the carpet because it was stained during [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.
- Ms Blair provided a copy of a carpet report prepared by [Carpet assessor]. The report notes: Each room has discolouration patches on the carpet which can’t be resolved, also cigarette burns in areas, discolouration is in all rooms
- The report was written in January 2026. This tenancy ended in November 2025. The property was re-tenanted after [The tenant/s] vacated.
- Ms Blair carried out a final inspection when [The tenant/s] vacated, and she provided a property condition report (in two parts). Ms Blair’s report shows black marks on the carpet in the lounge, a blue/green stain in the bathroom, and light stains in one bedroom.
- Ms Blair provided a copy of the entry condition report.
- On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that the dark spots in the lounge and the blue/green stain in the bathroom occurred during this tenancy.
- The evidence about whether there are new stains on the bedroom carpet that occurred during this tenancy is inconclusive. The entry photograph of the carpet in this room appears to show discolouration / staining. Ms Blair argued that the photographs were taken when the carpet was still drying after a commercial clean. Comparing the entry photographs to the exit photographs in Ms Blair’s report, it is not apparent to me that there are new stains.
- My finding is that the only proven stains during this tenancy are the small dark stains in the lounge and the blue/green stain in the bathroom.
- I accept that the stains in the lounge and bathroom cannot be removed by cleaning, but they are not serious and extensive enough to justify replacement of the carpet.
- The carpet is at least 13 years old, and it could be 15-20 years old, so significant depreciation would apply to the new replacement cost even if replacement was justified.
- There is unrepairable ‘damage’ (by way of staining) to this aged carpet. I will not award the amount of the insurance excess for these two rooms because, in my view, replacement of the carpet is not justified by this damage alone. The most appropriate approach to damages is to award compensation to the landlord.
- Having regard to the photographs of the stains and the age of the carpet I will award compensation of $400.00. Blind chain damaged
- The plastic chain for a roller blind snapped during the tenancy..
- The break was repaired with a connector, which cost $20, and a minimal amount of labour.
- It is arguable whether this damage is fair wear and tear, but [The tenant/s] did not dispute the claim strongly.
- I will award the cost of the connector. Windowsill rotten
- Ms Blair argued that the windowsill is rotten because the tenant failed to keep the window closed when it was raining.
- There is no eave over this window.
- The tenant leaving the window open is a possible explanation of water damage to the windowsill, but given the age of the premises and the absence of any rain protection for this window, it could also be a maintenance issue.
- My finding is that it is not proven that this is damage caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant and this part of the claim is dismissed. Front door handle broken
- The exterior front door handle came off during the tenancy. The claim seeks the cost of replacing the handle ($136.29) plus labour.
- [The tenant/s] said that the handle came off in her hand one day when she was entering the property.
- This is a 1960s/70s property in a relatively un-refurbished condition. The photographs show that most of the fittings are original. It is likely that the door handle was at least 50 years old.
- My finding is that it is unlikely that the exterior front door handle was carelessly or intentionally damaged by the tenant. It is more likely that the door handle failed due to its age.
- This part of the claim is dismissed. Doorstop missing
- The claim for a missing doorstop ($3.88) is proven. Front window cigarette burns
- Ms Blair argued that the exterior frame of the front window was damaged by cigarette burns.
- Ms Blair provided a photograph of the frame, which shows some marking / pitting.
- From the photograph it is not obvious that this is cigarette burn damage. The exterior window frame is exposed to the elements.
- There are innumerable possible explanations for this damage, the least likely of which is a careless or intentional action by the tenant.
- This part of the claim is dismissed. Replace smoke alarms
- There were two smoke alarms in the unit at the beginning of the tenancy.
- [The tenant/s] said that early in the tenancy there was an electrician at the property carrying out various work. The electrician noticed the two alarms and said that because of the size of the unit it was not necessary to have two alarms, and he removed one of them.
- [The tenant/s]’s oral evidence was clear, detailed, and credible. I accept her explanation of what happened to the second smoke alarm.
- This part of the claim is dismissed. Curtain fold-away holdbacks set damaged
- Ms Blair provided a photograph showing damage to the curtain holdbacks. The damage is not fair wear and tear.
- Ms Blair provided a photograph of the curtains from the beginning of the tenancy, but the holdbacks cannot be seen in the photograph (they are obscured by the curtains).
- [The tenant/s] said that she did not use these curtains during the tenancy. The curtains are substantial and ornate.
- In any claim for damage the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy.
- In this instance there is no evidence of the condition of the holdbacks at the beginning of the tenancy.
- Therefore this part of the claim is not proven. Curtain damaged
- Ms Blair’s photograph shows fraying damage on the edge of the curtain.
- The damage is in a one area and it has the appearance of something like cat damage rather than wear and tear.
- The claim is proven.
- The repair was inexpensive ($60) but Ms Blair said that the repairer would not do the work until the curtains were drycleaned. Ms Blair suggested that it was fair that the tenant pay half of the drycleaning cost, which I agree is reasonable. Missing plastic vent in bathroom
- Ms Blair subsequently found the vent and reinstated it successfully. Plant removed
- [The tenant/s] did not deny that she removed the plant. She said that Ms Blair told her that she was going to remove it anyway.
- Ms Blair denied this. She remembers commenting that the plant needed to be trimmed, but she had no intention of removing it.
- [The tenant/s]’s act of removing the plant amounts to intentional damage and it is not proven that she had the landlord’s consent to do this.
- The claim is proven. Pavers moved
- At the end of the tenancy there was a stack / pile of pavers near the garage door. Ms Blair argued that [The tenant/s] removed those pavers from where she had them at the start of the tenancy, placed around the edge of a garden bed.
- [The tenant/s] said that they were not around the edge of a garden bed, but were in a pile in the garage.
- There is no evidence to show that these pavers were placed around a garden bed at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The claim is not proven. Garden waste removed
- Tenants must leave the premises (including gardens and lawns) reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy.
- I was provided with photographs showing the gardens at the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] had added some plants (bromeliads), but the claim for garden waste disposal does not include those plants.
- The photographs show that [The tenant/s] met her duty to leave the gardens in a reasonably tidy condition.
- The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
- A landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8am and 7pm, if the landlord has given at least 48 hours’ notice (but not more than 14-days notice) of the intended entry. 1 The notice must be in writing.
- A landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time, with the tenant’s consent, for the purpose of showing the premises to a prospective tenant. 2 The tenant cannot unreasonably withhold their consent, but they can make their consent subject to reasonable conditions.
- If the landlord has the legal right to enter the premises, and the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to enter, without a reasonable excuse, the tenant has committed an unlawful act and exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.
- [The tenant/s] gave notice on 9 June to end the tenancy on 30 June.
- Ms Blair said that [The tenant/s] refused her access to the property to carry out an inspection or to show the premises to prospective tenants. Inspection
- On 17 June, Ms Blair sent [The tenant/s] an email asking for access for an inspection at 11.00pm on Friday 20 June 2025. She sent another email approximately 20 minutes later correcting the time to 11.00am.
- [The tenant/s] replied noting that Friday 20 June was a public holiday (Matariki). She suggested another date, 27 June.
- Ms Blair replied, suggesting Saturday 21 June or Sunday 22 June. 1 Section 48(2)(b) RTA 2 Section 48(3)(a) RTA
- [The tenant/s] replied: “As previously stated I am unable to meet with you to complete flat inspection this weekend due to having whanau commitments for Matariki weekend. I have suggested Friday 27 June”.
- No inspection was carried out before the final inspection on the last day of the tenancy.
- At the hearing I asked Ms Blair why she wanted to do an inspection 10 days before the end of the tenancy. She replied that she hadn’t done an inspection for a while and that she was entitled to inspect the premises.
- My finding is that: a. It was reasonable for [The tenant/s] to refuse an inspection over the Matariki long weekend. b. [The tenant/s] offered an alternative date, which the landlord did not accept. c. There is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. Tenant viewings
- On Wednesday 18 June, Ms Blair sent [The tenant/s] an email stating that she wanted to arrange viewing times for prospective tenants. Quite appropriately, Ms Blair said that she preferred specific viewing times, with some flexibility. She suggested either Saturday or Sunday, or Tuesday or Thursday of the following week.
- On 19 June [The tenant/s] replied stating that she could not accommodate the request for viewings on the weekend because it was the Matariki holiday weekend, and she had family visiting. She offered Tuesday 1pm-6pm and Thursday 1pm-6pm.
- On 23 June, [The tenant’s sister] (on behalf of [The tenant/s]) sent Ms Blair an email stating: In regards to showing prospective new tenants the property as we are in the final week before [The tenant/s]’s tenancy ends this will need to be done by appointment only.
- On Friday 27 June Ms Blair sent [The tenant/s] a text message asking for access to show the property to a prospective tenant. Later that morning [The tenant’s sister] replied on [The tenant/s]’s behalf stating: I am afraid today is not a good day I have just spoken to [The tenant/s]. Her daughter is home sick and [The tenant/s]’s stress levels are high today. I can try and to talk to her after work to see if a viewing is possible over the weekend. That is the best I can do today.
- Ms Blair sent a message later that day suggesting Sunday at 2.00pm.
- The next day (Saturday 28 June), [The tenant’s sister] replied: I spoke with [The tenant/s] last night and I am afraid that having a viewing over the weekend is not convenient, her daughter is unwell and there is still a lot to do by Monday.
- My finding is that: a. It was reasonable for [The tenant/s] to refuse the request for access over the Matariki long weekend, when she had family visiting. b. [The tenant/s] initially offered Ms Blair viewing times on Tuesday and Thursday afternoon, but she effectively withdrew this offer in the email on 23 June, stating that viewings “will need to be done by appointment only”. c. Ms Blair’s one request for a viewing was made on Friday 27 June. The tenancy ended on Monday 30 June. [The tenant/s] refused the request on the grounds that her daughter was at home sick and she was busy with preparing to leave the property. d. That refusal was reasonable in the circumstances. Ms Blair was to receive vacant possession from Tuesday 1 July and could have as many viewings as she wished. I accept [The tenant/s]’s statement that her daughter was sick, and she would have been very busy packing up and cleaning in the last weekend before the end of the tenancy.
- There is no basis for an award of exemplary damages and this part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
- Both parties were partially successful in their respective applications, and I will award the filing fee to both. 3
- The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenant was substantially successful in the proceedings 4 . In making that finding I note that the landlord’s application initially sought $14,545.22 and I have awarded $1,430.41.
- The bond will be split per the order above. N Blake, 11 February 2026 3 Section 102(4)(b) RTA 4 Section 95A(1) RTA