What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357441 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 5357441?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Blind: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Laundry Shelf: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357441?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357441 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 5357441?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Blind: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Laundry Shelf: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357441?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357441 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357441 — net $264.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Broken blind	$74.75	Repairs: Broken blind
Repairs: Laundry shelf	$90.00	Repairs: Laundry shelf
Net award	$264.75
Bond	$3,175.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$264.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Eves Realty Group Limited as agents for GSTC Investments Ltd $264.75 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,175.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Eves Realty Group Limited as agents for GSTC Investments Ltd: $264.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,910.96

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has made a cross application seeking compensation and a partial refund of the bond. The landlord had also sought outstanding water rates however, prior to the hearing, the tenants agreed that these should be paid from the bond, and that has occurred.
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2024 and ended on 23 September 2025.
Both parties provided evidence in support of their respective claims, and I confirm that this has been considered even if there is no direct reference to it.

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 say that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they were required to carry out further cleaning at the invoiced cost of $300.00. The invoice notes the work as an end of lease clean totalling four hours.
The tenants say that the house was left in a reasonable and good condition at the end of the tenancy. They say the carpets were professionally cleaned, the gardens were professionally done, and the house was fully cleaned prior to the keys being handed back.
The standard is reasonably clean and tidy, and this is not necessarily the same standard as, for example, how the landlord may wish for it to be presented to a new tenant or an owner moving back into the property.
On review of the evidence, it is apparent that the tenant has carried out cleaning to the premises. I accept that it is difficult to see to a granular level in photographs. I am however satisfied that the evidence shows that there were a few locations where cleaning did not meet the required standard, for example the oven door glass, but I do not consider that the amount claimed reflects these items. As such, I consider that it is reasonable to award $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
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 the removal of a shelf in the laundry that was installed by the tenants. An invoice has been provided for $90.00 and details that the shelf was removed, holes patched, sanded and painted. The tenants did not dispute that they installed the laundry shelf or the amount claimed, however, they did advise that the laundry wall was not in a perfect condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord also claims for a broken blind in the back bedroom that required repair at the invoiced cost of $74.75. At the hearing, the tenants did not dispute this amount.
Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection reports have been provided, together with evidence of costings.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the laundry wall (from shelf installation) and a broken blind. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not reimbursed the filing fees to either party and consider in the circumstances that these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenants requested name suppression and as they have been partially successful in reducing the claim against them, this is granted. They also detailed personal interests that I consider would outweigh any public interest in publication in these circumstances. See section 95A of the RTA. The landlord did not seek name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 14 March 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357441 — net $264.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Broken blind	$74.75	Repairs: Broken blind
Repairs: Laundry shelf	$90.00	Repairs: Laundry shelf
Net award	$264.75
Bond	$3,175.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$264.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Eves Realty Group Limited as agents for GSTC Investments Ltd $264.75 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,175.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Eves Realty Group Limited as agents for GSTC Investments Ltd: $264.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,910.96

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has made a cross application seeking compensation and a partial refund of the bond. The landlord had also sought outstanding water rates however, prior to the hearing, the tenants agreed that these should be paid from the bond, and that has occurred.
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2024 and ended on 23 September 2025.
Both parties provided evidence in support of their respective claims, and I confirm that this has been considered even if there is no direct reference to it.

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 say that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they were required to carry out further cleaning at the invoiced cost of $300.00. The invoice notes the work as an end of lease clean totalling four hours.
The tenants say that the house was left in a reasonable and good condition at the end of the tenancy. They say the carpets were professionally cleaned, the gardens were professionally done, and the house was fully cleaned prior to the keys being handed back.
The standard is reasonably clean and tidy, and this is not necessarily the same standard as, for example, how the landlord may wish for it to be presented to a new tenant or an owner moving back into the property.
On review of the evidence, it is apparent that the tenant has carried out cleaning to the premises. I accept that it is difficult to see to a granular level in photographs. I am however satisfied that the evidence shows that there were a few locations where cleaning did not meet the required standard, for example the oven door glass, but I do not consider that the amount claimed reflects these items. As such, I consider that it is reasonable to award $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
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 the removal of a shelf in the laundry that was installed by the tenants. An invoice has been provided for $90.00 and details that the shelf was removed, holes patched, sanded and painted. The tenants did not dispute that they installed the laundry shelf or the amount claimed, however, they did advise that the laundry wall was not in a perfect condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord also claims for a broken blind in the back bedroom that required repair at the invoiced cost of $74.75. At the hearing, the tenants did not dispute this amount.
Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection reports have been provided, together with evidence of costings.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the laundry wall (from shelf installation) and a broken blind. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not reimbursed the filing fees to either party and consider in the circumstances that these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenants requested name suppression and as they have been partially successful in reducing the claim against them, this is granted. They also detailed personal interests that I consider would outweigh any public interest in publication in these circumstances. See section 95A of the RTA. The landlord did not seek name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 14 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357441 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357441 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions