What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352563 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Dynamic Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5352563?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352563?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12838445-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352563 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Dynamic Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5352563?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352563?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12838445-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 86 East Tamaki Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352563 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352563 — net $900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Insurance excess - vanities	$800.00	Insurance excess - vanities
Net award	$900.00
Bond	$3,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$900.00

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Dynamic Limited As Agent For M M Antebi $900.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 (6532413-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Dynamic Limited As Agent For M M Antebi: $900.00 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,200.00

Reasons

A hearing was held on 26 November 2025 by video and phone conference. The agent for the landlord, Mr Pais for Dynamic Limited, attended along with the owners. Mr [The tenant/s] and Mr [The tenant/s] attended on behalf of the tenants.

The tenancy commenced on 10 May 2024 and ended on 21 August 2025. The weekly rent was $775, and the bond lodged was $3,100.

The premises is a newly built property, and the tenants were the first to occupy the home. The tenancy was originally for a fixed term and later continued as a periodic tenancy. The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on or about 1 August 2025.

The landlord filed an application seeking compensation for cleaning, damage to the premises (including insurance excesses and a quote fee), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants filed a cross-application disputing the landlord’s claims and seeking refund of the bond.

The landlord provided an exit inspection report, multiple photographs, professional cleaning invoices, builder quotes, and insurance documents. The tenants say the premises was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state and that all damage claimed falls within fair wear and tear. The Parties’ Positions

The landlord says the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and caused damage to the premises beyond fair wear and tear. They claim $335.35 for cleaning, $3,930 for repair work (not yet completed), $800 for insurance excess (two accepted insurance claims), and $150 for the builder’s quote fee.

The tenants say they cleaned to a reasonable standard and that any further cleaning was discretionary or to the incoming tenant’s preference. They argue that the landlord’s expectations were excessive. The tenants also deny causing any damage beyond normal wear and tear, assert that the vanities were of poor quality, and say the claimed repair amounts are exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Relevant Law

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 ensure that all chattels provided for their benefit are left behind, as outlined in section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Section 40(2) RTA provides that a tenant is liable for intentionally or carelessly damaging the premises during the tenancy. The landlord must first establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy and such damage is not fair wear and tear, then the onus is on the tenant to prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that he/she is not responsible for the damage. If the tenant is unable to do so, the landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable costs of fixing the damage.

A landlord must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities and may not recover compensation for speculative or unquantified future costs (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZDC 19433).

Wear and tear refers to “the reasonable deterioration that occurs during normal use of residential premises” and does not create tenant liability. Tribunals must distinguish between cosmetic imperfections and actual damage.

Accordingly, the landlord bears the burden of producing enough evidence during a hearing to support and prove their case. Importantly, a landlord is not automatically entitled to compensation merely because the rented premises were undamaged at the start of the tenancy and show signs of damage at the end. The landlord must prove, rather than merely assert, that the tenant was the person who damaged the rented premises, that the tenant failed in his or her obligation to avoid damage to the rented premises beyond fair wear and tear. Normal living is expected to have a deleterious effect on the state of rented premises. As a result, breakages, scuff marks, scratches and dents are not necessarily inconsistent with normal wear and tear , and the landlord is not entitled to compensation simply because things break or wear out.

The Tribunal may only award actual costs incurred unless repair work has already been undertaken or is so imminent and unavoidable that awarding a quote is justified. Generally, quotes are not sufficient where repairs have not yet been completed Analysis Cleaning

The landlord seeks $335.35 for professional cleaning after the tenancy ended. The landlord relies on photographs and an email from the incoming tenant requesting commercial cleaning, stating the property was not “spotless”.

The tenants maintain that they cleaned to a reasonable standard and reject the need for a commercial clean, stating that perfection is not a requirement under the RTA.

The Tribunal has reviewed the photographs. While some areas—such as skirtings, glass surfaces, and kitchen appliances—did show signs of dust, watermarks, or mild grime, the overall cleanliness was moderate. The Tribunal accepts that the property was not left spotless, but that is not the legal standard.

Section 40(1)(e) only requires that premises be “reasonably” clean. The Tribunal is satisfied that most of the cleaning performed met that threshold. However, some additional cleaning (particularly in bathrooms and kitchen) should have been attended to.

The Tribunal finds that a modest award of $100.00 is reasonable to reflect cleaning tasks left incomplete. The remainder of the claimed cost was an upgrade to commercial standards, which goes beyond statutory obligations. Damage and Builder’s Quote

The landlord has provided a quote for $3,930 from a contractor outlining multiple repair tasks across bedrooms, bathrooms, the garage, and common areas. However, no repairs have yet been carried out. A new tenant now occupies the premises.

Compensation must reflect actual loss, not merely estimates. As noted in Guo v Korck, landlords must substantiate losses with evidence of completed work and actual invoices. This principle ensures fairness and avoids overcompensation.

The Tribunal also notes that the landlord indicated they may pursue these claims again once the work is done. Accordingly, these claims are withdrawn by consent.

The Tribunal makes no finding at this stage in respect of the $3,930 or the builder’s $150 quote fee. Insurance Excess – Vanities

The landlord has provided documentation confirming two accepted insurance claims relating to bathroom vanity damage. The cause appears to be a chemical spill and heat exposure (e.g., from a straightener or hot object).

The Tribunal accepts that these damages were caused carelessly. The tenants suggest the damage was caused by ordinary use (e.g., a soap dispenser) and that the materials were inferior. However, no expert evidence or competing opinion has been provided to support that assertion.

Under section 49B, the tenants are liable for the $400 excess per incident, totalling $800.

The Tribunal therefore awards $800.00 to the landlord for insurance excess costs. Bond and Orders

The landlord has succeeded on part of the cleaning claim ($100.00) and fully on the insurance excess claims ($800.00). No findings are made in relation to the $3,930 damage quote or builder’s fee at this time.

The total award is $900.00. The bond of $3,100 will be applied to that amount, with the balance refunded to the tenants. Filing Fee and Name Suppression

Under section 102(4) of the RTA, the filing fee may only be awarded to a substantially successful party. The landlord has succeeded on only a small part of their claim.

Similarly, suppression under section 95A of the RTA may only be granted to a substantially successful party. As neither party was substantially successful, suppression is declined.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352563 — net $900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Insurance excess - vanities	$800.00	Insurance excess - vanities
Net award	$900.00
Bond	$3,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$900.00