What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341304 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 5341304?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Less Funds Already Held By The Landl…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,881.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341304?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341304 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 5341304?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Less Funds Already Held By The Landl…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,881.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341304?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341304 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341304 — net $4,467.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 March 2025	$140.00		Rent arrears to 23 March 2025
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Lawns and rubbish removal	$120.00		Lawns and rubbish removal
Replacing missing light bulbs	$28.00		Replacing missing light bulbs
Repair kitchen drawer	$120.00		Repair kitchen drawer
Repairs to walls and doors	$3,881.25		Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Less funds already held by the landlord		$200.00	Less funds already held by the landlord
Total award	$4,667.25	$200.00
Net award	$4,467.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,467.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,467.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] appeared in person for the landlord. The tenant appeared by telephone.
The tenancy commenced on 04 October 2022 and ended on 23 March 2025 after the tenant gave notice.
On 4 September 2025, the landlord filed a claim for vacated rent arrears of $140.00 and alleged that the tenant had: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and failed to remove all rubbish ($350.00 + $100.00). ii. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy ($20.00). iii. Damaged a kitchen drawer, toilet roll holder, toilet seats, door locks, and was liable for missing light bulbs ($350.00). iv. Damaged walls and doors ($6,000.00).
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rest with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). Rent arrears
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant agreed to the release of the bond to cover rent arrears. The bond was applied, leaving a balance outstanding of $140.00. The tenant states that they had also reached an agreement to pay for “expenses” at the rate of $100.00 per week. The landlord states that the tenant made two payments, on 1 May 2025 and 10 May 2025, and then stopped. These expenses appear to relate to claims made by the landlord. Starting afresh, I am applying the funds held by the landlord to the awards made in these matters. Cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn maintenance
The property was constructed in 2015 and comprises of three bedrooms, each with ensuite, a main bathroom, lounge, kitchen / dining area, and internal garage, which contains the laundry.
The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection report. The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy, and failed to remove all rubbish.
The tenant states that they personally cleaned the property but accepts that they left some items of rubbish behind, and that the lawns were not reasonably tidy. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and replace missing light bulbs. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
It appears that despite their best intentions, the tenant missed cleaning some areas of the property and failed to return them in a reasonably clean condition, particularly the ensuite bathrooms, main bathroom, and kitchen. The tenant accepts that they did not remove all rubbish and that the lawns were not left reasonably tidy.
Having heard from the parties and considered the inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. The amounts claimed are reasonable and are awarded.
Light bulbs are chattels which should be returned at the end of the tenancy. However, like any other chattel, light bulbs are subject to fair wear and tear. While a tenant is not liable for blown bulbs, they are responsible for replacing any bulbs that are missing. The landlord states that there were seven missing bulbs in total. The invoice is not itemised. A standard light bulb costs around $4.00 each. I therefore award the landlord $28.00 to replace the missing light bulbs. Damage
The damage claim can be broken into two parts. Firstly, there is a claim for damage to a kitchen drawer, tightening and reattaching toilet roll holders, checking and tightening loose door handles, and realigning and tightening a toilet seat. The invoice for the $350.00 claimed to address these matters is not itemised and includes the light bulbs, which I have already addressed. Secondly, there is damage to walls and doors throughout the property.
[The property manager/s] states that he was the property manager who conducted the end-of-tenancy inspection, took the photographs, and prepared the report produced. A photograph has been provided showing the front of a kitchen drawer missing, and a toilet roll holder in one of the ensuites that has come off the wall and is sitting on a nearby vanity. The landlord refers to photographs of toilet seats which they state required realigning and tightening, as did some of the door handles which had also become loose. The landlord submits that this damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant stated that they had resided at the property with their six children, three of whom were teenagers and three under the age of ten.
The tenant stated that the drawer front had been “banged on” by one of their children and had come off but was located nearby to be reattached. The tenant also stated that the toilet roll holder had been loose for a while and that they had verbally informed [The property manager/s], although [The property manager/s] could not recall being told. The tenant further stated that the other holders had also become loose, as had the toilet seats and some door handles.
[The property manager/s] guided the Tribunal through the photographs in the end-of-tenancy inspection report, noting holes in the walls in the lounge, kitchen, dining room, hallway, and each of the three bedrooms. All but four areas of damage had been plaster patched by the tenant, but not sanded or repainted. In addition to this damage, the landlord states that all rooms contained scrapes and dents, as well as some drawings on the walls, which they considered to be more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant accepted that damage had occurred and that most of it had been partly repaired. They stated that the broken door was to an ensuite, which had a lock but no key. One of their children became locked inside, so the door was kicked in. The tenant also stated that another door was simply off its hinges and could be reattached. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis and decision
I am satisfied that the damage to the kitchen drawer occurred during the tenancy and based on the tenant’s explanation, was more than fair wear and tear and likely the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for damage, with an excess of $2,500.00 per claim. However, based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that tightening and reattaching toilet roll holders, checking and tightening loose door handles, and realigning and tightening a toilet seat amounted to more than fair wear and tear, as these are typically high-use areas. I award the landlord $120.00 to repair the kitchen drawer, which also involved repairing the drawer runners.
The damage to the walls and doors occurred during the tenancy. The damage can be described as relatively minor but widespread. The holes in the walls and the damage to the doors are more than fair wear and tear and are likely the result of carelessness. Regarding the scrapes and dents, while some may be expected over a tenancy lasting three years, I accept the landlord’s submission that the widespread nature of the damage takes it beyond what would normally be considered fair wear and tear. However, it must also be recognised that some fair wear and tear to walls is to be expected.
[The property manager/s] stated that the owner of the property accepted some of the works in the quote provided and completed other tasks themselves. He stated that the property has not been re-tenanted and is now occupied again by the owner. [The property manager/s] also stated that all of the damage was repaired, and all interior walls were painted for $5,175.00.
While some walls may have required total repainting, the damage on others was minor and may not have required full repainting. As stated, walls and doors, particularly in rental properties with seven occupants, six of whom are children, should be expected to be subject to fair wear and tear. In this case, I reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and award the landlord $3,881.25. The amount awarded is less than the total insurance excesses that would have applied. Costs
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
In this case my global assessment is that both parties have been substantially successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341304 — net $4,467.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 March 2025	$140.00		Rent arrears to 23 March 2025
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Lawns and rubbish removal	$120.00		Lawns and rubbish removal
Replacing missing light bulbs	$28.00		Replacing missing light bulbs
Repair kitchen drawer	$120.00		Repair kitchen drawer
Repairs to walls and doors	$3,881.25		Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Less funds already held by the landlord		$200.00	Less funds already held by the landlord
Total award	$4,667.25	$200.00
Net award	$4,467.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,467.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,467.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] appeared in person for the landlord. The tenant appeared by telephone.
The tenancy commenced on 04 October 2022 and ended on 23 March 2025 after the tenant gave notice.
On 4 September 2025, the landlord filed a claim for vacated rent arrears of $140.00 and alleged that the tenant had: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and failed to remove all rubbish ($350.00 + $100.00). ii. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy ($20.00). iii. Damaged a kitchen drawer, toilet roll holder, toilet seats, door locks, and was liable for missing light bulbs ($350.00). iv. Damaged walls and doors ($6,000.00).
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rest with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). Rent arrears
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant agreed to the release of the bond to cover rent arrears. The bond was applied, leaving a balance outstanding of $140.00. The tenant states that they had also reached an agreement to pay for “expenses” at the rate of $100.00 per week. The landlord states that the tenant made two payments, on 1 May 2025 and 10 May 2025, and then stopped. These expenses appear to relate to claims made by the landlord. Starting afresh, I am applying the funds held by the landlord to the awards made in these matters. Cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn maintenance
The property was constructed in 2015 and comprises of three bedrooms, each with ensuite, a main bathroom, lounge, kitchen / dining area, and internal garage, which contains the laundry.
The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection report. The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy, and failed to remove all rubbish.
The tenant states that they personally cleaned the property but accepts that they left some items of rubbish behind, and that the lawns were not reasonably tidy. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and replace missing light bulbs. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
It appears that despite their best intentions, the tenant missed cleaning some areas of the property and failed to return them in a reasonably clean condition, particularly the ensuite bathrooms, main bathroom, and kitchen. The tenant accepts that they did not remove all rubbish and that the lawns were not left reasonably tidy.
Having heard from the parties and considered the inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. The amounts claimed are reasonable and are awarded.
Light bulbs are chattels which should be returned at the end of the tenancy. However, like any other chattel, light bulbs are subject to fair wear and tear. While a tenant is not liable for blown bulbs, they are responsible for replacing any bulbs that are missing. The landlord states that there were seven missing bulbs in total. The invoice is not itemised. A standard light bulb costs around $4.00 each. I therefore award the landlord $28.00 to replace the missing light bulbs. Damage
The damage claim can be broken into two parts. Firstly, there is a claim for damage to a kitchen drawer, tightening and reattaching toilet roll holders, checking and tightening loose door handles, and realigning and tightening a toilet seat. The invoice for the $350.00 claimed to address these matters is not itemised and includes the light bulbs, which I have already addressed. Secondly, there is damage to walls and doors throughout the property.
[The property manager/s] states that he was the property manager who conducted the end-of-tenancy inspection, took the photographs, and prepared the report produced. A photograph has been provided showing the front of a kitchen drawer missing, and a toilet roll holder in one of the ensuites that has come off the wall and is sitting on a nearby vanity. The landlord refers to photographs of toilet seats which they state required realigning and tightening, as did some of the door handles which had also become loose. The landlord submits that this damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant stated that they had resided at the property with their six children, three of whom were teenagers and three under the age of ten.
The tenant stated that the drawer front had been “banged on” by one of their children and had come off but was located nearby to be reattached. The tenant also stated that the toilet roll holder had been loose for a while and that they had verbally informed [The property manager/s], although [The property manager/s] could not recall being told. The tenant further stated that the other holders had also become loose, as had the toilet seats and some door handles.
[The property manager/s] guided the Tribunal through the photographs in the end-of-tenancy inspection report, noting holes in the walls in the lounge, kitchen, dining room, hallway, and each of the three bedrooms. All but four areas of damage had been plaster patched by the tenant, but not sanded or repainted. In addition to this damage, the landlord states that all rooms contained scrapes and dents, as well as some drawings on the walls, which they considered to be more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant accepted that damage had occurred and that most of it had been partly repaired. They stated that the broken door was to an ensuite, which had a lock but no key. One of their children became locked inside, so the door was kicked in. The tenant also stated that another door was simply off its hinges and could be reattached. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis and decision
I am satisfied that the damage to the kitchen drawer occurred during the tenancy and based on the tenant’s explanation, was more than fair wear and tear and likely the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for damage, with an excess of $2,500.00 per claim. However, based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that tightening and reattaching toilet roll holders, checking and tightening loose door handles, and realigning and tightening a toilet seat amounted to more than fair wear and tear, as these are typically high-use areas. I award the landlord $120.00 to repair the kitchen drawer, which also involved repairing the drawer runners.
The damage to the walls and doors occurred during the tenancy. The damage can be described as relatively minor but widespread. The holes in the walls and the damage to the doors are more than fair wear and tear and are likely the result of carelessness. Regarding the scrapes and dents, while some may be expected over a tenancy lasting three years, I accept the landlord’s submission that the widespread nature of the damage takes it beyond what would normally be considered fair wear and tear. However, it must also be recognised that some fair wear and tear to walls is to be expected.
[The property manager/s] stated that the owner of the property accepted some of the works in the quote provided and completed other tasks themselves. He stated that the property has not been re-tenanted and is now occupied again by the owner. [The property manager/s] also stated that all of the damage was repaired, and all interior walls were painted for $5,175.00.
While some walls may have required total repainting, the damage on others was minor and may not have required full repainting. As stated, walls and doors, particularly in rental properties with seven occupants, six of whom are children, should be expected to be subject to fair wear and tear. In this case, I reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and award the landlord $3,881.25. The amount awarded is less than the total insurance excesses that would have applied. Costs
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
In this case my global assessment is that both parties have been substantially successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341304 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341304 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions