Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5345161 — Property damage
Decided 8 Jan 2026 · Published 8 Jan 2026 · Application 5345161
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,123.34 (‘the debt”), calculated as shown in the table below.
- The tenant must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $100.00 per week.
- The first payment must be made on Tuesday 9 December 2025 and payments must continue every Tuesday until the debt is paid in full.
- If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- This matter was heard by video conference on 26 November 2025. Both parties attended.
- The tenancy commenced on 26 October 2023 and ended on 29 July 2025. The rent was $690.00 per week and there was a bond of $3,000.
- The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, repairs, replacement of damaged items, reimbursement of the filing fee, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The specific items claimed are: • Cleaning, carpet cleaning, wall repair and painting – $1,860.70 (Minta Invoice no. 0887); • Carpet replacement (lounge, ensuite and second-floor bedroom) – $3,245.75 (PA Group Invoice no. 34635); • Blinds (lounge area) – $257.60; • Filing fee – $28.00; • Less a rent/invoice credit of $22.96 and the bond of $3,000, resulting in the final amount of $2,369.09 being sought.
- The landlord relied on a combination of inspection reports, photographs, invoices, and a rent ledger. The Landlord’s position
- The landlord submitted that the property was a new build at the start of the tenancy, and everything was in excellent condition. The landlord stated that while some general wear was expected, only damage exceeding fair wear and tear was claimed. The landlord relied on detailed move-in and move-out inspection reports, which documented the condition of the premises before and after the tenancy.
- The landlord further submitted that damage included stained carpets, extensive marks, gouges, and scratches on walls, and broken blind cords. The landlord provided supporting invoices and photographic evidence. The carpet in particular, according to the landlord, had stains that could not be removed through professional cleaning and required replacement in three separate rooms. The wall damage required both cleaning and repainting, and the lounge blinds required repair/replacement. The Tenant’s position
- The tenant did not dispute liability for the lounge blind repair, agreeing to this part of the claim. She also acknowledged that she engaged cleaners at the end of the tenancy and accepted that some stains remained on the carpets. However, she disputed the need for full carpet replacement in the 3 roooms, and asked that the Tribunal consider the age, condition, and reasonableness of the replacement costs.
- The tenant also accepted that there were marks on the walls, but submitted that some were consistent with fair wear and tear. She asked that the Tribunal apportion costs fairly. Legal framework
- The relevant law is found under sections 40 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- Under section 40(1)(e)(ii), a tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and under section 40(2)(a), a tenant is liable for intentional or careless damage to the premises or chattels that occurred during the tenancy.
- If the landlord proves that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly, or occurred otherwise than through their fault (section 49B).
- In applying the legal framework, the Tribunal must also consider whether the costs claimed are reasonable, and whether repair or replacement is justified. The age and condition of the damaged item must be taken into account, along with depreciation and whether the work was necessary. Notably, landlords are not automatically entitled to compensation simply because the property was new or in good condition at the start of the tenancy. There must be sufficient evidence to prove damage beyond fair wear and tear. Analysis
- The carpet stains were documented in photographs and confirmed by the landlord’s evidence. The move-out report noted visible staining in the lounge, bedrooms upstairs and ensuite. Although the tenant arranged for carpet cleaning, the photographs and replacement invoice demonstrate that the cleaning was unsuccessful in restoring the carpet in these areas. I accept that replacement was reasonable.
- However, given the extent of the damage and considering that some wear may have been expected over the 21-month tenancy, I consider it appropriate to apportion the carpet replacement cost. I allow $2,000.00 for the carpet replacement, being a reduced and reasonable contribution towards the total cost incurred.
- Regarding wall cleaning and repairs, the photographs show numerous scuff marks, dents, and scratches, consistent with damage that exceeds fair wear and tear, particularly given the short duration of the tenancy and the landlord’s evidence that the walls were unmarked at commencement. I accept the invoice from Minta as credible and allow the full amount claimed under that invoice.
- While I accept the tenant had undertaken cleaning, the amount claimed for general cleaning is modest and the supporting invoice appears credible and proportionate.
- The tenant has admitted responsibility for the blind cord damage, and the claim of $257.60 is modest and supported by a quotation. I allow this in full.
- The landlord is therefore awarded the following: •Wall cleaning and repair, general cleaning, and carpet cleaning: $1,860.70 •Carpet replacement (apportioned): $2,000.00 •Blind repairs: $257.60 •Filing fee: $28.00 •Less bond of $3,000.00 and invoice credit of $22.96 •Total payable by tenant: $1,123.34 Payment Plan
- The tenant agreed at the hearing to pay the balance by way of instalments of $100.00 per week, commencing Tuesday 2 December 2025. Given the time lapse in releasing this decision, I consider it reasonable to adjust the start of the payment plan to Tuesday 9 December 2025. Filing fee and suppression order
- As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- This is essentially a consent order and therefore I consider it reasonable to also grant suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.