What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348307 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/A Monkey Hill Farm Partnership

How much money was awarded in case 5348307?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348307?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348307?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12753484-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348307 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/A Monkey Hill Farm Partnership

How much money was awarded in case 5348307?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348307?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348307?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12753484-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

158 Paparoa Station Road, Paparoa, RD 1, Paparoa 0571 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348307 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348307 — net $728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$400.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet and vinyl (insurance excess contribution	$1,200.00	Repairs: Carpet and vinyl (insurance excess contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$728.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.00

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 fixed term tenancy commenced on 21 September 2024 and the tenant vacated on 29 August 2025 (after a negotiated early end date).

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 (RTA).

The landlord says that the carpets required professional cleaning due to excessive animal hair and claims $400.00. A Chemdry invoice has been provided.

The landlord has provided photographic evidence of hair and dust that was removed from the carpet and collected by the vacuum cleaner and advises that it took several attempts, and the further steam clean by Chemdry to rectify the issue. This included works after the new tenants had moved into the property and correspondence has been provided in support. The invoice from Chemdry noted: “General clean of three bedrooms, lounge, dining and hall. Removed a large volume of pet hair”.

The tenant disputes this claim and says that no issues were raised during the final inspection. She also says that she was not given an opportunity to return to the property to remedy any issues.

There is no requirement under the RTA to allow a tenant to return to the property after a tenancy has ended to carry out any additional cleaning, and often issues will not be evident during a final inspection which is often conducted quickly.

On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the cost claimed by the landlord is reasonable.

The amount ordered is 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 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.

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 claims for damage caused to the shower (crimson/red staining), shower floor water damage and carpet staining.

In respect of the carpet, the landlord says that the carpet was installed new two days prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord says that there was staining to the master bedroom and lounge, dining room, the stains or burn marks could not be lifted and the quoted cost to replace the carpet was $3,976.15.

However, the landlord has been able to obtain insurance and only seeks the insurance excess. The insurance company has charged a different excess for each room, and so the landlord seeks $1,300.00 for the carpet damage (being two insurance excesses of $650.00 for two rooms).

For the damaged vinyl in the shower room, the landlord seeks a further excess of $650.00. I note that the actual repair cost was $1,207.73.

The landlord has provided some photographs of the carpet and vinyl staining.

There was also a further estimated amount sought towards remedial damage to the shower room floor of $350.00, caused by water coming through the shower and into the wood and possibly the subfloor (although no investigations have been carried out).

The tenant says that during the final inspection the landlord said they were happy with the property, and that they were advised that the lounge carpet stains would be treated as wear and tear.

They also say that they were not given any opportunity to return to the property to carry out any minor works. In addition, there had always been an issue with water coming out of the shower and that they had not carelessly caused this damage.

They also say that the tenancy agreement only records the insurance excess as $550.00 and not $650.00, so the landlord is unable to now charge the higher amount. Discussion

On review of the evidence provided, I consider that I don’t have adequate evidence of the remedial damage to the shower room floor of $350.00 and so this claim is dismissed.

I agree with the tenant that the insurance excess payable by the tenant is that recorded in the tenancy agreement. The RTA requires the landlord to record the insurance excess so that the tenant is aware of their liability, and any error in what the landlord has stated should not be borne by the tenant.

I have not been provided with significant photographs of the carpet. At the end of the tenancy, some carpet marks would be considered fair wear and tear however on review, some of the marks shown on the carpet and vinyl go beyond that and were at least careless.

I therefore consider it appropriate for the tenant to pay $1,200.00 towards the carpet and vinyl damage.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet and vinyl damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/A Monkey Hill Farm Partnership has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. Neither party sought name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 17 December 2025

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348307 — net $728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$400.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet and vinyl (insurance excess contribution	$1,200.00	Repairs: Carpet and vinyl (insurance excess contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$728.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.00