Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5348102 — Property damage at 51A Northland Road, Northland, Wellington 6012
Decided 31 Mar 2026 · Published 31 Mar 2026 · Application 5348102
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $10 immediately
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond to [The landlord/s].
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenancy is a downstair flat with the upstairs property also rented. The tenancy began on 18 December 2023 and ended on 27 July 2025. The tenancy ended by agreement. Before the tenancy ended there had been an agreement by the tenant that they would have the property commercially cleaned. However, due to personal issues this did not occur.
- On re-entry, the landlord discovered that there were stains on the carpets, cleaning was necessary, and there was mould and mildew. The landlord made a claim to her insurer, who has replaced the carpet. The landlord has made this application and seeks: a. cleaning - $750; b. dehumidifier which was taken in error by the tenants - $695; c. the repainting and remediation of the bathroom - $500; d. policy excess for carpet replacement - $2000; and e. loss of rent during repairs - $3920.
- The landlord has also sought permission to dispose of goods worth $35. It eventuated during the hearing that the tenant accepted that they had accidentally taken the dehumidifier and had returned this to the landlord. Damage
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for the damage to painted walls and ceilings in the bathroom and for the replacement of carpets.
- 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. 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.
- Considering the carpets, there were stains from metal furniture in the bedroom, and a Fanta stain in the lounge. The tenant accepted responsibility for these.
- I note that the landlord has sought the two policy excesses of $1000 (one for each room) which she was charged by her insurance company. However, the tenancy agreement specifies an excess of $300. The landlord is bound by the excess specified in the tenancy agreement, as this is a term of the agreement which cannot be changed unilaterally. I award $600 to the landlord for the carpets.
- The landlord has claimed the cost of repainting the bathroom. She says this was necessitated by the tenant’s failure to ventilate the bathroom. The tenant says that the property was damp, due to its location sitting against a south facing hillside. I note that the premises came with the dehumidifier, and the tenant used two of their own. The tenant accepted that the bathroom window was generally not opened while the shower was in use, as there were privacy issues due to a path directly outside the window. However, he gave evidence that the extractor fan in the bathroom was wired to the light switch so any time the shower or bathroom was in use the ventilation fan was on.
- The landlord bears the onus of proving that a) damage has occurred, and b) that the tenant is liable for it. When parties’ puts forward contrary evidence about a fact, in the absence of further evidence, neither party can prove that fact to the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider which party is obliged to prove a particular fact. In this instance, the landlord must prove her case.
- The landlord has provided relatively sparse evidence of the alleged damage. there is a photo of bubbling paint on the bathroom ceiling. The tenant says this came from a leak from the upstairs tenancy, the landlord says this was investigated by a plumber and nothing was found. However, I note that the bubbling paint follows a roughly square shape, indicative of water entering into paint through the butted joins between gib sheets. the bubbling itself is the type of bubbling seen when water builds up behind paint. The damage is shown is not indicative of mildew or mould. The landlord has not proven that the tenants have caused any damage in the bathroom. Cleaning
- At the end of the tenancy a 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 landlord has provided photos of the oven which was left very grubby, of window sills and mullions, which have mildew and dust on them, and of what appear to be mildew or condensation marks on a sustained exposed timber beam. She says that there was a grimy film throughout the entire tenancy and accused the tenants of vaping or smoking in the premises. photos of cigarette butts lift in a plant pot were provided. The tenant denies smoking or vaping. However, the tenant does accept that due to the personal circumstances they had to leave the tenancy in a rush and did not carry out any cleaning.
- The landlord has not provided an invoice to justify the $750 claim. She used student job search and paid students an hourly rate. This is a reasonably small flat. The cleaning costs claimed are, in the experience of the tribunal, excessive. I award $400, which is a relatively standard and reasonable rate for professional cleaning for premises of this size and a level of cleaning which the evidence appears to justify. Loss of rent
- The landlord has claimed loss of rent for the period while the carpet was being replaced, the property cleaned, and the bathroom repainted. The possibility of maintenance or other work being required at the end of the tenancy is a normal consequence of renting a property. The tenant is not liable to pay rent after a lease has finished while such work is being completed. I make no order for loss of rent.