Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5333459 — Property damage at 59 Cannington Road, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010
Decided 11 Sept 2025 · Published 11 Sept 2025 · Application 5333459
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Dunedin
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
S Young
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $325.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $325.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $75.00 | Cleaning | |
| Repairs | $250.00 | Repairs | |
| Net award | $325.00 | ||
| Bond | $3,200.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $325.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5333459 — net $325.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $75.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Repairs
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs
Net award
Landlord $325.00
Bond
Landlord $3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $325.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Click Property Management Limited As Agent For Tyler Rudolph & Rachel Hadlow $325.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5951349-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Click Property Management Limited As Agent For Tyler Rudolph & Rachel Hadlow: $325.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,875.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the video hearing.
- The tenants were represented by [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s].
- The tenants applied to the Tribunal for release of the bond and reimbursement of their filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants agreed that the modest cleaning fee of $75.00 was appropriate. The tenants are ordered to pay compensation of $75.00.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $300.00 on each and every claim.
- 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 Landlord says that the walls in two bedrooms were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the two bedrooms which were taken at the commencement of the tenancy. There is no apparent damage to the walls in those photos.
- The landlord provided photos taken after the end of the tenancy. The photos show some minor damage in both bedrooms 3 and 4. The landlord provided an invoice for painting and repairs of $589.00.
- The tenant was unable to provide any evidence to indicate that the damage had occurred prior to the tenancy commencing. The tenant said that the damage shown in the photos was due to fair wear and tear.
- A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. The District Court has held that “mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
- Having reviewed the photos provided by the landlord, I consider that the damage to the walls in the two bedrooms has been caused in part by the careless actions of the tenants in affixing and removing “command hooks” and in part as a result of fear wear and tear. In those circumstances, I consider that a reasonable award of compensation for the careless damage (excluding fair wear and tear) is $250.00.This sum is less than the excess on the landlord’s insurance policy The tenants are ordered to pay compensation of $250.00.
- The amounts ordered are proven.
- Both parties have applied for reimbursement of their filing fee. Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this matter and as a result I make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Neither party applied for name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s3, s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333459 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to
How much money was awarded in case 5333459?
Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333459?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333459?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12400313-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.