Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5363927 — Cleanliness
Decided 27 Feb 2026 · Published 27 Feb 2026 · Application 5363927
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details of the tenancy including the address of the tenancy.
- Bonnie Colleen Patricia Childs must pay [The landlord/s] $1,050.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing which was held by video. The tenant did not attend.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed to the bond being refunded to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was an extreme amount of rubbish in the tenant’s room and bathroom 1 , and the rooms requires significant cleaning.
- The amounts ordered are 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 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. 1 This is a boarding house tenancy.
- 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) the computer desk and bedside cabinet, provided with the tenancy, were damaged and required replacement. b) the shower slide, the towel rail and a door handle were damaged and required replacing; c) damage was caused to walls, a door and the carpet was badly stained and smelled at the end of the tenancy.
- Th amount claimed by the landlord for the items listed in a) and b) above is ordered. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
- The landlord claims $2,707.91 for damage to the walls, door and carpet. He advised that he had made an insurance claim under which he is due $327.91 after paying excesses. In terms of the amount to be awarded for these damage items I have considered the following:
- Walls and door: The walls were significantly damaged during the tenancy and required repair, as did the door. After the repairs were completed the walls, door and ceiling were re-painted. The landlord advised that they were last repainted around 15 years ago but were in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
- The contractor completing the work has not specified the cost of the repairs and painting work in the invoice, however I note that the quote from the same contractor set out that the same work would be $1,000.00 +gst.
- Carpet: I am satisfied the carpet and underlay required to be removed and replaced at the end of the tenancy due to the stains and smell. The landlord advised that the carpet was around 10 years old at the end of the tenancy but was in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
- In terms of considering what compensation the landlord is entitled to, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. Everything, including painted walls and other surfaces, is subject to wear and tear. All painted surfaces will eventually need repainting. If tenant damage means repainting is needed sooner than expected, the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position than if the damage had not happened.
- Generally I consider painted surfaces have a life span of around 10-15 years in tenanted premises. That means the painted surfaces in the tenant’s room are at the end of, or past, their life expectancy. I accept the damage requires repairing which is the reason it was repainted, and therefore that the need for the room to be repainted has been accelerated by the damage the tenant has caused. I consider the appropriate compensation after considering betterment and depreciation is $500.00. This amount reflects the amount of damage that needed repair and includes an amount in acknowledgement that the need to pain the room has been escalated.
- I consider carpet has a life span of around 10 years in tenancy premises and therefore that the carpet was at the end of its expected life. I find the condition the carpet was in at the end of the tenancy has accelerated the need to replace the carpet and find an award of $250.00 is appropriate compensation in this case.
- Given the above I find an award of $750.00 is appropriate. However as the landlord has received $327.91 from his insurance claim for these matters it is appropriate to award $750.00 less $327.91. This results in a loss to the landlord of $422.05 which I find the tenant is liable to pay.
Is the landlord entitled to three weeks lost rent?
- The landlord has claimed loss of three weeks rent for the time taken to clean and repair the premises.
- A landlord is entitled to recover loss of rent. It is a loss suffered by the landlord as a direct consequence of the tenant failing to meet their legal obligations to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, removal all rubbish and not cause damage beyond fair wear and tear.
- It is expected that at the end of every tenancy the landlord may have to carry out some cleaning and maintenance work which means that the premises cannot be available to re-let immediately.
- However, in this instance I accept that the damage was significant and the condition the premises was left in was at the extreme end of unreasonably clean. I am satisfied that the cleaning and repairs would have taken three weeks and caused the premises to be unavailable for at least three weeks after the tenancy ended. The landlord was not able to advertise the premises until it was in a condition that it could be tenanted. The tenancy was not re-let immediately after the repairs and cleaning were completed.
- Accordingly I find the landlord’s claim for three week’s loss of rental income is reasonable in these circumstances. Other matters
- As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The landlord has applied for suppression of his name and the identifying details of the tenancy. As he has been substantially successful in his claim his application is granted.