What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364081 about?

The tribunal order states: The bond centre is to release the bond as follows.

How much money was awarded in case 5364081?

Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Scribbled Walls: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364081?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13261046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364081 about?

The tribunal order states: The bond centre is to release the bond as follows.

How much money was awarded in case 5364081?

Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Scribbled Walls: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364081?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13261046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364081 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364081. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,020.00		Rent arrears
Repainting scribbled walls	$200.00		Repainting scribbled walls

Order

The bond centre is to release the bond as follows.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began in effect on 16 November 2023. Initially the lease was with the named tenant and two cotenants. However, in 2024 the two cotenants left the tenancy. On 1 March 2025 a new lease agreement was signed for a fixed term lease terminating on 31 August 2025, with the tenant, his wife and young child living in the tenancy.
The tenancy ended when it was agreed that the tenant and his family could move out on 18 August 2025. The tenants says the agreement was that rent would cease on this date. The landlord disputes this saying he agreed to the moveout date but did not accept that this was the end of the lease, and that two further weeks rent is due to the end of the lease.
The landlord says on re-entry he discovered that the premises were in a high level of uncleanliness, for which he seeks $5450 of cleaning costs, storage fees and dump fees. The tenant says that he left the premises in the same condition as when he moved in, and that the condition of the paint and many of the rooms meant when they try to clean them paint went flake or peel off.

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. However, a tent is not required to return the premises in better condition than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord alleges at the end of the tenancy there were various issues including: a. the cooktop was left with grime and grease; b. kitchen cabinets were grimy and greasy; c. a kitchen tile had come loose; d. a marble benchtop area had gouges and marks on it; e. there were pen marks and shoe marks on walls; f. walls throughout the premises were grimy; g. the shower was grimy; h. damage to walls, painted surfaces including windowsills, and to ceilings; i. stains and an iron burn mark on carpets, j. window hinges and hardware had been damaged; and k. scrapes to gibbed painted surfaces in the kitchen.
The landlord has quantified the cleaning and repair costs at $4790 based on his own time at $40 an hour, the cost of cleaning products, paint and materials, and travel of $1350 based on 18 trips from the North Kapiti coast.
The tenant’s evidence is that on moving out they attempted to clean but in many areas paint was damaged by the cleaning attempts. They tried to remove the filter holders from the kitchen extractor but the plastic was brittle and broke. They say the premises were left in the condition in which they found them. The tenant accepts that the pen marks on walls were caused by their child.
The landlord says that the property had been extensively cleaned and the walls sugar soaped before the tenancy began. However, the difficulty is that there are no pre-tenancy photos. The last photos of the premises before the tenancy began date from June 2022.
The Tribunal operates using the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities. This simply means that a person must prove their claim by showing that the facts they allege are more likely than not to have occurred. When the Tribunal was faced with two competing accounts of a fact with no additional evidence, in this case relating to the pre-tenancy condition of the premises, neither party can prove their account is more likely than not to have occurred. In such a case the Tribunal must look to the onus, that is to say which party is obliged to prove the particular fact. In this instance the landlord bears the onus of proving that the condition of the tenancy had worsened during the tenancy. In the absence of pre-tenancy photos or other material this cannot be proven. Beyond the liability for the scribble marks on walls, which the tenant accepted had been caused by his young child, I must dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning and repair costs.
Furthermore, I note that the tenancy is a reasonably small premises being 60 m². The amounts sought by the landlord is excessive. In the experience of the Tribunal professional cleaning of premises which this in far worse condition than this one normally costs less than a third of the amount sought here. An award of costs based on the landlord’s own time at $40 an hour is problematic as damages are normally awarded on the basis of costs incurred rather than a notional charge out rate. The landlord had produced a text he says is from a professional cleaner which purported to do the work for $3800. However, this is not evidence of equality which proves the amount sought is not excessive. I also note that the landlord’s travel would not be awarded even if the damage having proven. There are professional cleaning companies which operate locally.
I also note that some aspects of the damage alleged, the window joinery and hinges, appear to be related to the age of the premises and not to the actions of the tenant.
I award the landlord $200 for the repainting of walls on which scribble marks have been left. This amount is a reasonable estimate of the cost for restoring this damage based on other matters which have come before me. Exemplary damages
Both parties have claimed exemplary damages against the other: a. the landlord has claimed exemplary damages of $10,350 for the tenant removing the batteries from a smoke alarm placing the smoke alarm in a cupboard; and b. the tenant has claimed exemplary damages for alleged healthy home breaches, alleged distress, and financial hardship due to the bond is not being refunded.
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the Residential Tenancies Act identifies a breach as an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are designed to dissuade a party from continuing with behaviours which have been identified as un-lawful.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is based on an admission by the tenant that they removed the batteries from smoke alarm as it was beeping and waking his child. The calculation of exemplary damages sought is based on the risk of endangerment to the landlord’s property and the adjoining flat for loss of rent should a fire have occurred.
The landlord’s claim fails as; a. The tenant’s responsibility to not interfere with smoke alarms as set out at S 40(1)(ca) RTA. However, this obligation is not listed as an unlawful act at S 40 (3A). Therefore, the act makes no allowance for exemplary damages to be awarded if there is a breach. b. The Tribunal cannot award damages for risks which did not eventuate.
The tenant has sought exemplary damages on the basis that the premises were cold and draughty “so we suspect that does not meet the [healthy home] standards”. However no further evidence has been provided of these alleged healthy homes breaches. The landlord has provided a copy of a healthy homes checklist, however, this checklist is dated 5 October 2025, and therefore is not evidence of the healthy homes status of the premises during the tenancy.
As above the tenant has not proven their claim for healthy homes breaches, therefore, I must dismiss this claim.
The tenant has also sought exemplary damages for distress and financial hardship. There is no allowance in the RTA for exemplary damages for such issues. Furthermore, I note that there was a genuine dispute about the condition of the property, and it would not be appropriate to award damages in such circumstances. Rent arrears
The tenant says there was an agreement by the landlord that they would only pay rent to the move out date. The landlord says there was no such agreement. As above this means I cannot resolve this issue and must look to who is obliged to prove their position. In this instance the term of the lease was to 31 August 2025. It is the tenant’s obligation to prove that there was a change from this starting position. The tenant has not done so. Therefore, I find that the tenant is obliged to pay two weeks rent to the landlord. Storage and dump fees
I note that the landlord had also sought dump fees of $330, and storage fees of $330 for the tenant’s fridge and table. However, the amount sought have not been proven. I also note that following the hearing the parties discussed the return of the fridge and table, and it appears they have agreed that the landlord will retain these items. I note that the amount of rubbish involved was not large and the amount sought is excessive, I decline to award damages for this.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364081. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,020.00		Rent arrears
Repainting scribbled walls	$200.00		Repainting scribbled walls

Order

The bond centre is to release the bond as follows.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began in effect on 16 November 2023. Initially the lease was with the named tenant and two cotenants. However, in 2024 the two cotenants left the tenancy. On 1 March 2025 a new lease agreement was signed for a fixed term lease terminating on 31 August 2025, with the tenant, his wife and young child living in the tenancy.
The tenancy ended when it was agreed that the tenant and his family could move out on 18 August 2025. The tenants says the agreement was that rent would cease on this date. The landlord disputes this saying he agreed to the moveout date but did not accept that this was the end of the lease, and that two further weeks rent is due to the end of the lease.
The landlord says on re-entry he discovered that the premises were in a high level of uncleanliness, for which he seeks $5450 of cleaning costs, storage fees and dump fees. The tenant says that he left the premises in the same condition as when he moved in, and that the condition of the paint and many of the rooms meant when they try to clean them paint went flake or peel off.

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. However, a tent is not required to return the premises in better condition than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord alleges at the end of the tenancy there were various issues including: a. the cooktop was left with grime and grease; b. kitchen cabinets were grimy and greasy; c. a kitchen tile had come loose; d. a marble benchtop area had gouges and marks on it; e. there were pen marks and shoe marks on walls; f. walls throughout the premises were grimy; g. the shower was grimy; h. damage to walls, painted surfaces including windowsills, and to ceilings; i. stains and an iron burn mark on carpets, j. window hinges and hardware had been damaged; and k. scrapes to gibbed painted surfaces in the kitchen.
The landlord has quantified the cleaning and repair costs at $4790 based on his own time at $40 an hour, the cost of cleaning products, paint and materials, and travel of $1350 based on 18 trips from the North Kapiti coast.
The tenant’s evidence is that on moving out they attempted to clean but in many areas paint was damaged by the cleaning attempts. They tried to remove the filter holders from the kitchen extractor but the plastic was brittle and broke. They say the premises were left in the condition in which they found them. The tenant accepts that the pen marks on walls were caused by their child.
The landlord says that the property had been extensively cleaned and the walls sugar soaped before the tenancy began. However, the difficulty is that there are no pre-tenancy photos. The last photos of the premises before the tenancy began date from June 2022.
The Tribunal operates using the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities. This simply means that a person must prove their claim by showing that the facts they allege are more likely than not to have occurred. When the Tribunal was faced with two competing accounts of a fact with no additional evidence, in this case relating to the pre-tenancy condition of the premises, neither party can prove their account is more likely than not to have occurred. In such a case the Tribunal must look to the onus, that is to say which party is obliged to prove the particular fact. In this instance the landlord bears the onus of proving that the condition of the tenancy had worsened during the tenancy. In the absence of pre-tenancy photos or other material this cannot be proven. Beyond the liability for the scribble marks on walls, which the tenant accepted had been caused by his young child, I must dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning and repair costs.
Furthermore, I note that the tenancy is a reasonably small premises being 60 m². The amounts sought by the landlord is excessive. In the experience of the Tribunal professional cleaning of premises which this in far worse condition than this one normally costs less than a third of the amount sought here. An award of costs based on the landlord’s own time at $40 an hour is problematic as damages are normally awarded on the basis of costs incurred rather than a notional charge out rate. The landlord had produced a text he says is from a professional cleaner which purported to do the work for $3800. However, this is not evidence of equality which proves the amount sought is not excessive. I also note that the landlord’s travel would not be awarded even if the damage having proven. There are professional cleaning companies which operate locally.
I also note that some aspects of the damage alleged, the window joinery and hinges, appear to be related to the age of the premises and not to the actions of the tenant.
I award the landlord $200 for the repainting of walls on which scribble marks have been left. This amount is a reasonable estimate of the cost for restoring this damage based on other matters which have come before me. Exemplary damages
Both parties have claimed exemplary damages against the other: a. the landlord has claimed exemplary damages of $10,350 for the tenant removing the batteries from a smoke alarm placing the smoke alarm in a cupboard; and b. the tenant has claimed exemplary damages for alleged healthy home breaches, alleged distress, and financial hardship due to the bond is not being refunded.
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the Residential Tenancies Act identifies a breach as an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are designed to dissuade a party from continuing with behaviours which have been identified as un-lawful.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is based on an admission by the tenant that they removed the batteries from smoke alarm as it was beeping and waking his child. The calculation of exemplary damages sought is based on the risk of endangerment to the landlord’s property and the adjoining flat for loss of rent should a fire have occurred.
The landlord’s claim fails as; a. The tenant’s responsibility to not interfere with smoke alarms as set out at S 40(1)(ca) RTA. However, this obligation is not listed as an unlawful act at S 40 (3A). Therefore, the act makes no allowance for exemplary damages to be awarded if there is a breach. b. The Tribunal cannot award damages for risks which did not eventuate.
The tenant has sought exemplary damages on the basis that the premises were cold and draughty “so we suspect that does not meet the [healthy home] standards”. However no further evidence has been provided of these alleged healthy homes breaches. The landlord has provided a copy of a healthy homes checklist, however, this checklist is dated 5 October 2025, and therefore is not evidence of the healthy homes status of the premises during the tenancy.
As above the tenant has not proven their claim for healthy homes breaches, therefore, I must dismiss this claim.
The tenant has also sought exemplary damages for distress and financial hardship. There is no allowance in the RTA for exemplary damages for such issues. Furthermore, I note that there was a genuine dispute about the condition of the property, and it would not be appropriate to award damages in such circumstances. Rent arrears
The tenant says there was an agreement by the landlord that they would only pay rent to the move out date. The landlord says there was no such agreement. As above this means I cannot resolve this issue and must look to who is obliged to prove their position. In this instance the term of the lease was to 31 August 2025. It is the tenant’s obligation to prove that there was a change from this starting position. The tenant has not done so. Therefore, I find that the tenant is obliged to pay two weeks rent to the landlord. Storage and dump fees
I note that the landlord had also sought dump fees of $330, and storage fees of $330 for the tenant’s fridge and table. However, the amount sought have not been proven. I also note that following the hearing the parties discussed the return of the fridge and table, and it appears they have agreed that the landlord will retain these items. I note that the amount of rubbish involved was not large and the amount sought is excessive, I decline to award damages for this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364081 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364081 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions