How much money was awarded in case 5366561?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Handrail, Shower Attachment: $356.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13277225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5366561?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Handrail, Shower Attachment: $356.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13277225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366561 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366561 about?

The tribunal order states: By agreement, the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord names

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366561 — net $931.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: handrail, shower attachment	$356.50	Repairs: handrail, shower attachment
Cleaning to include carpet cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning to include carpet cleaning
Net award	$931.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$931.50

By agreement, the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $931.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, and exemplary damages for the bond not lodged within 23 working days.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Both parties are required to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.

[Tenant] and [tenant] have been added as tenants. I am satisfied they should have been added to the tenancy agreement and bond records as they were both living as joint tenants with the others for the duration of this tenancy (for the most part).

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required?

The tenant claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. This tenancy commenced on 26 November 2024 and the tenant was notified by the Bond Centre that the bond was not lodged until 11 March 2025.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord has provided their bank details and notification to the Bond Centre of this bond (amongst others) dated 5 December 2024.

Given the discrepancy, I am therefore unable to conclude that the landlord failed to lodge the Bond within the required time.

This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

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.

I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in some minor areas such as the blinds, showers, some kitchen surfaces and floor, and there was a stain in the downstairs bedroom carpet.

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 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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken and leaking shower attachment, broken handrail connection. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which falls within the careless category rather than intentional. The landlord did not provide details of his insurance excess but I am satisfied that the amounts sought are likely much less (per incident) than the excess in any event.

I find that tightening of the door stops is fair wear and tear.

I also find evidence of pre-existing marks on the door frame of the ensuite bathroom at the start of the tenancy. I accept that this has likely been caused by the door scraping against the frame as stated by the tenant. I therefore find that this is wear and tear rather than any damage caused by the tenant.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name Suppression

Both parties agree to name suppression for each other.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366561 — net $931.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: handrail, shower attachment	$356.50	Repairs: handrail, shower attachment
Cleaning to include carpet cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning to include carpet cleaning
Net award	$931.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$931.50

Order

By agreement, the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $931.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, and exemplary damages for the bond not lodged within 23 working days.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties are required to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
[Tenant] and [tenant] have been added as tenants. I am satisfied they should have been added to the tenancy agreement and bond records as they were both living as joint tenants with the others for the duration of this tenancy (for the most part).

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required?

The tenant claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. This tenancy commenced on 26 November 2024 and the tenant was notified by the Bond Centre that the bond was not lodged until 11 March 2025.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided their bank details and notification to the Bond Centre of this bond (amongst others) dated 5 December 2024.
Given the discrepancy, I am therefore unable to conclude that the landlord failed to lodge the Bond within the required time.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

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.
I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in some minor areas such as the blinds, showers, some kitchen surfaces and floor, and there was a stain in the downstairs bedroom carpet.
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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken and leaking shower attachment, broken handrail connection. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which falls within the careless category rather than intentional. The landlord did not provide details of his insurance excess but I am satisfied that the amounts sought are likely much less (per incident) than the excess in any event.
I find that tightening of the door stops is fair wear and tear.
I also find evidence of pre-existing marks on the door frame of the ensuite bathroom at the start of the tenancy. I accept that this has likely been caused by the door scraping against the frame as stated by the tenant. I therefore find that this is wear and tear rather than any damage caused by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name Suppression
Both parties agree to name suppression for each other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366561 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366561 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required?

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