What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335743 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 5335743?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $276.43 awarded to tenant; Repainting – Tenant Contribution: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; To Front Door: $115.00 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Bench Top: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cook Top- Tenant Contributio…: $311.79 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $183.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335743?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335743?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12469850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335743 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 5335743?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $276.43 awarded to tenant; Repainting – Tenant Contribution: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; To Front Door: $115.00 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Bench Top: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cook Top- Tenant Contributio…: $311.79 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $183.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335743?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335743?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12469850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Fontana Street, Papamoa, Tauranga 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335743 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

25 Fontana Street, Papamoa, Tauranga 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335743 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335743 — net $1,874.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$183.27		Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$184.97		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to front door	$115.00		Repairs: to front door
Repairs: to kitchen bench top	$700.00		Repairs: to kitchen bench top
Replace cook top- tenant contribution	$311.79		Replace cook top- tenant contribution
Repair exterior guttering	$700.00		Repair exterior guttering
Repainting – tenant contribution	$1,400.00		Repainting – tenant contribution
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Carpet cleaning and stain removal	$517.50		Carpet cleaning and stain removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$276.43	Rent credit
Total award	$4,590.53	$276.43
Net award	$1,874.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,874.10

Claims and awards for application 5335743 — net $1,874.10 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $183.27
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $184.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: to front door

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to front door

Repairs: to kitchen bench top

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to kitchen bench top

Replace cook top- tenant contribution

Amount: $311.79
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace cook top- tenant contribution

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,374.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15/7/2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing/in credit at 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, 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 amount awarded is reduced significantly from that claimed to reflect that a tenant need not remove every mark from every surface at the end of a tenancy but need only leave a property reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenancy ran for 5 and a half years, the landlord has had it cleaned to a standard where it can be re-let. The cleaning cost claimed includes all windows inside and out, ceilings to remove all fly marks and skirting boards and surfaces throughout. In short that level of cleanliness or detail exceeds by a considerable margin the standard required. The amount awarded is considered a reasonable assessment of the tenant’s liability to restore the property to the required standard.
The carpets were stained, and the carpet cleaning cost awarded is to remove those stains.
The tenant did not return two keys.
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: the kitchen bench top was cracked and had two small chips and the exterior guttering dented when a trailer the tenant was driving, hit it. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Reimbursement of the landlord’s insurance excess is awarded for each claim.
The tenant attached a hook to the aluminium door. The landlord removed it as it was not straight, and the amount awarded is considered fair compensation to restore the door/remove the fixture.
The ceramic oven top was chipped in several places. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the amount claimed fairly considers depreciation and is awarded.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation and fair wear and tear when assessing the claim of $1,932 for painting throughout the property.
In my view to award the full cost would be to fail to take account of fair wear and tear. Simply put there will be some minor scuffing to walls and surfaces simply as a result of five people, including three teenagers renting and living in a property.
The landlord should only 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 and applying depreciation, I have taken into account that the paintwork was new at the beginning of the tenancy, that rectifying some damaged areas certainly goes beyond fair wear and tear, but also that some marks can fairly be considered fair wear and tear and the cost of repainting those surfaces is not awarded. The age and condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan has therefore been considered.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved the requested name suppression.
As the tenants’ bond has largely covered the costs awarded, none of the claims were for intentional damage, and I consider the objection the tenants’ raised to some costs claimed was reasonable, I have also supressed the tenant’s name as requested.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335743 — net $1,874.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$183.27		Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$184.97		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to front door	$115.00		Repairs: to front door
Repairs: to kitchen bench top	$700.00		Repairs: to kitchen bench top
Replace cook top- tenant contribution	$311.79		Replace cook top- tenant contribution
Repair exterior guttering	$700.00		Repair exterior guttering
Repainting – tenant contribution	$1,400.00		Repainting – tenant contribution
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Carpet cleaning and stain removal	$517.50		Carpet cleaning and stain removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$276.43	Rent credit
Total award	$4,590.53	$276.43
Net award	$1,874.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,874.10

Claims and awards for application 5335743 — net $1,874.10 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $183.27
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $184.97
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: to front door

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to front door

Repairs: to kitchen bench top

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to kitchen bench top

Replace cook top- tenant contribution

Amount: $311.79
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace cook top- tenant contribution

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,374.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15/7/2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing/in credit at 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, 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 amount awarded is reduced significantly from that claimed to reflect that a tenant need not remove every mark from every surface at the end of a tenancy but need only leave a property reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenancy ran for 5 and a half years, the landlord has had it cleaned to a standard where it can be re-let. The cleaning cost claimed includes all windows inside and out, ceilings to remove all fly marks and skirting boards and surfaces throughout. In short that level of cleanliness or detail exceeds by a considerable margin the standard required. The amount awarded is considered a reasonable assessment of the tenant’s liability to restore the property to the required standard.
The carpets were stained, and the carpet cleaning cost awarded is to remove those stains.
The tenant did not return two keys.
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: the kitchen bench top was cracked and had two small chips and the exterior guttering dented when a trailer the tenant was driving, hit it. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Reimbursement of the landlord’s insurance excess is awarded for each claim.
The tenant attached a hook to the aluminium door. The landlord removed it as it was not straight, and the amount awarded is considered fair compensation to restore the door/remove the fixture.
The ceramic oven top was chipped in several places. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the amount claimed fairly considers depreciation and is awarded.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation and fair wear and tear when assessing the claim of $1,932 for painting throughout the property.
In my view to award the full cost would be to fail to take account of fair wear and tear. Simply put there will be some minor scuffing to walls and surfaces simply as a result of five people, including three teenagers renting and living in a property.
The landlord should only 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 and applying depreciation, I have taken into account that the paintwork was new at the beginning of the tenancy, that rectifying some damaged areas certainly goes beyond fair wear and tear, but also that some marks can fairly be considered fair wear and tear and the cost of repainting those surfaces is not awarded. The age and condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan has therefore been considered.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved the requested name suppression.
As the tenants’ bond has largely covered the costs awarded, none of the claims were for intentional damage, and I consider the objection the tenants’ raised to some costs claimed was reasonable, I have also supressed the tenant’s name as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335743 — Property damage at 25 Fontana Street, Papamoa, Tauranga 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335743 — Property damage at 25 Fontana Street, Papamoa, Tauranga 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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