What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356551 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 5356551?

Oven Racks: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356551?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13209394-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356551 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 5356551?

Oven Racks: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356551?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13209394-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356551 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356551 — net $92.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven racks	$92.00	Oven racks
Net award	$92.00
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$92.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356551 — net $92.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven racks	$92.00	Oven racks
Net award	$92.00
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$92.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $92.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $92.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,908.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s], and [The landlord’s support person] attended in support.
This tenancy began on 20 August 2022 and ended on 6 September 2025. The tenants have filed an application seeking the return of their bond in full. They also claim a privacy breach by the landlord, and seek compensation for legal fees of $600.00. This is application number 5356551.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim, application number 5370925, seeking compensation for carpet cleaning, damage to a garage windowsill, and replacement of oven racks.
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Both parties provided photographic, documentary and oral evidence in support of their claims, which are considered below. Cleaning
The landlord claims $271.50 for carpet cleaning costs and has produced photographs, and an invoice from [The cleaning company], which undertook the cleaning. The landlord states there were stains in the bedroom carpet, and these had to be professionally cleaned. The carpet in the bedroom, a wool carpet, was installed in April 2023. There were two patches of stains. The landlord states the foam was released during the cleaning process and the stains have now been removed. In response to the tenant’s evidence, the landlord claims the stains were not the result of fair wear and tear.
The tenants state in their evidence that they returned the premises in a good condition and did not damage the carpet. The carpet had sunk in the area where furniture was placed. They had cleaned it thoroughly. They also provided extensive photographic evidence at the hearing. They referred to earlier events during the tenancy, during the [floods], when they took measures to protect the carpet. Legal framework
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 . This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 2 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean 3 , spotless 4 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 5 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 6 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 7

Did the tenants comply with their cleaning obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I have considered the extensive photographic evidence produced by the parties, together with their oral evidence at the hearing. Applying the principles set out above, and taking into account the parties’ submissions, I find that the tenants have complied with their obligation under the RTA to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. While the standard of cleaning may not have been to the standard desired by the landlord, and the landlord has undertaken some further cleaning, that is not the test to be applied.
Furthermore, the claim by the landlord is for carpet cleaning costs. Focusing on the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy, I consider the carpet staining to be minor, and the overall condition of the carpet meets the standard required. I note that, apart from stain removal, the invoice records that the work includes steam cleaning, sanitising and deodorising treatments, and an acid rinse and pH balancing to prevent re-soiling.
Accordingly, the tenants will not be liable for the carpet cleaning costs, and this claim is dismissed. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 4 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 5 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 6 Richards v Scally (above) 7 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Oven racks
The landlord claims $92.00 for replacing two oven racks, and has provided photographs, along with evidence of its replacement cost. The tenants accept that they removed the oven racks, disposed of them because of their condition, and forgot to replace them.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave all chattels provided for their benefit at the end of the tenancy. As the oven racks were removed, the tenants will be responsible for the replacement cost, as claimed by the landlord. This is awarded above. Garage windowsill Legal framework
The landlord claims compensation for damage to a windowsill. To be successful, the 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 of the 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

The landlord claims the tenants are responsible for damage to a garage windowsill, and seeks $575.00 in compensation for its repair. The landlord has provided a building inspection report from [Building company 1]. [Building company 1’s inspector] noted the deterioration was observed on the windowsill, and that the pattern and nature of the damage was more consistent with external interference or exposure to a corrosive substance, rather than moisture related decay. It was noted that an infrared inspection was conducted on the affected sill and there was no evidence of active water penetration or elevated moisture levels. Therefore, the damage was not related to leaks or internal water damage.
The landlord has also submitted a quotation with the observations following a site visit by a representative from [Building company 2]. The opinion was that the damage was not caused by moisture ingress, but rather, was the result of a chemical or something similar.
On the other hand, the tenants have provided an opinion from [Cabinetmaker], a qualified joiner and cabinetmaker, who considers the damage to be the result of water, either from external moisture (from outside the window) or due to condensation on the window. This opinion was provided after viewing photographs sent by the tenants.
The landlord’s oral evidence is that the garage was built in 2000. The garage was flooded in 2023, and a dehumidifier was used for two weeks to dry it out. Special equipment was used. The landlord states the water did not reach the windowsill. The landlord submits that the tenants’ evidence is from a cabinet maker who did not inspect the site, whereas they have provided two separate building inspectors’ reports. The landlord notes photographs of shelving in front of the windowsill indicates it is likely there was a spillage of corrosive substances on the windowsill. The landlord accepts that the building inspectors were not told about the impact of the floods.
The tenants state, in their oral evidence, that they did not place anything on the windowsill to cause damage, and deny placing any chemicals on it. The tenants submit that the damage was likely due to the absorption of water during the [floods], or the result of incorrect materials being used when constructing the windowsill. Following the floods, there was flood recovery work. The tenants spoke about the impact of the floods, noting that for three months, they put up with living in one or two rooms and had to move their belongings. The tenants note other windowsills outside the property had similar damage.
Overall, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the landlord has been unable to prove, with sufficient evidence, that the tenants are responsible for the windowsill damage. This is because the likely cause of the damage, and whether it was caused during this tenancy, by the tenants, is uncertain. While photographic evidence of damage at the end of the tenancy has been produced, the landlord has not provided clear photographic evidence of the condition of the windowsill at the start of the tenancy. This raises the question of whether the windowsill was damaged before this tenancy began. The professional opinions obtained by the parties on the likely cause is also conflicting.
Furthermore, there is evidence of flooding at the property during this tenancy. The tenants will not be responsible for damage caused by floods. The report of [Building company 1’s inspector] and the quotation from [Building company 2] does not address the likelihood of the impact of the floods, even though flood restoration work was undertaken at the premises. The opinion from the cabinetmaker also does not comment on this.
There is also the oral evidence of the tenants, which I accept, that they did not place anything on the windowsill to cause damage, and they deny placing any chemicals on it.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find the tenants are not responsible for the damage to the windowsill. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Privacy breach
The tenants claim the landlord had passed on personal information to their daughter’s school without their consent. They state the landlord informed the school that they no longer resided at the property, and this affected their daughter’s ability to attend the school due to zoning. They consider this to be a breach of privacy. They have provided a letter written by their lawyer to the landlord, setting out the obligation of the landlord to handle tenant information with utmost care, noting disclosure without the tenant’s consent constitutes an interference with privacy, and this disclosure had caused harm by impacting their child’s school access. At the hearing, the tenants spoke about the impact of this communication, noting they had not given permission for the landlord to contact the school. They felt their reputation with the school management had been destroyed.
In response, the landlord has explained that the tenants asked her to provide a letter to their daughter’s school. The tenants asked for an amended letter to advise the school that the property would continue to be available to rent in 2026. However, when the tenants gave their notice to terminate the tenancy, she informed the tenants that she would have to contact the school to correct the information provided. The landlord states she had the tenants’ permission to contact the school to correct this information.
Section 38(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 8 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 9 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Under Section 38(2) there is reference to the privacy of the tenant and the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that this is not interfered with. In the case of Thompson-Huntley v KJP Investments Limited 10 the Tribunal noted that the right to privacy under the RTA does not directly correspond to the right to privacy under the Privacy Act. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at the tenancy premises.
In this case, there is conflicting evidence as to whether the landlord had the tenants’ permission to communicate with the school, after they gave notice terminating the tenancy. However, from the landlord’s perspective, it was reasonable to ensure the information given to the school was accurate. Overall, I do not find the circumstances here amount to a breach by the landlord of the tenants’ rights under section 38. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Other costs 8 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 9 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 10 [2021] NZTT Waitakere 4260498
The tenants claim compensation for legal fees of $600.00, as shown in the invoice from their lawyer. While noting their reasons for seeking legal assistance, this is not a cost that the Tribunal can award in this case. Generally, such costs are not awarded by the Tribunal, except in limited circumstances. Furthermore, each party has had some measure of success.
There is no reimbursement of the filing fee, since each party has had some success with their claims. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356551 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356551 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their cleaning obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their cleaning obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions