What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367861 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $3,536.25

How much money was awarded in case 5367861?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367861?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13163599-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367861 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $3,536.25

How much money was awarded in case 5367861?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367861?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13163599-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Birdwood Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367861 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $3,536.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: ItemAmount Rent arears$2,950.00 Oven tray replacement$71.99 Extractor fan replacement$505.00 Oven cleaning$48.10 Kitchen bench cleaning$25.00 Remove safety catches$15.00 Kitchen cupboard cleaning$45.00 Stool replacement$95.00 Cleaning fireplace dispose of ash$15.00 Windowsill remediation$30.00 Lounge / dining room floor repair$281.03 Bathroom cleaning$75.40 Shower head replacement$37.98 Cleaning nail polish in bedroom$25.00 Damage to shelf$30.00 Wall repair bedroom 1$90.00 Lampshade replacement$18.50 Rubbish removal$15.00 Hearth damage$210.00 Lawn work$180.00 Replacement tree$35.94 Window paint removal$102.50 Replacement garden edging$45.00 Garage floor cleaning$72.33 Paint removal garage floor$30.00 Graffiti removal - Garage door$188.19 Graffiti removal - bin$10.00 Rubbish / green waste removal$78.00 Locker lock damage$25.00 Lawn remediation$40.89 Oven manual replacement$34.50 Remote control replacement$270.00 Fire bucket and broom$19.90 Hose replacement $162.89 Missing gate latch$62.44 Filing fee$28.00 Minus bond - $2,360.00 Total payable by tenant to landlord$3,536.25
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (000028062360) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. This hearing was scheduled for a full-day. This morning, the tenant emailed requesting to attend by telephone. I considered that request and the reasons she gave, but the request was declined. I considered that this case is too complex to be conducted by telephone, given the claims from both parties, and taking into consideration that the tenant had requested that the hearing be interpreted. The hearing proceeded, there was no appearance by either the tenant or a representative.

BACKGROUND

The landlord is [The landlord/s], and the sole tenant is Awhina Northover- Matthews.
The tenancy commenced on 29 November 2024, and is a periodic tenancy. The tenancy ended on 10 October 2025 following notice/agreement of the parties.
Following the termination of the tenancy, both parties have filed applications against each other.
I will address the claims individually below, but before doing so, will summarise the general law that is relevant for these claims.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation for damage
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims in turn.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Rent arrears

The landlord claims $2,950.00 rent arrears, being rent arrears until 10 October 2025, being the agreed date the tenancy ended. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Roasting dish
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of the roasting dish, that the landlord states was used as an oil drip tray under a car, and has been contaminated with car grease and oil so not fit for use for food use. The landlord seeks compensation of $71.99.
I am satisfied that the dish has been damaged as described, and would not be able to be used for food purposes. This claim is established and ordered in full. Kitchen fan
The landlord states that the tenant has removed the extractor fan in the kitchen. The landlord seeks compensation of $185.00 to replace the unit, and $320.00 being the quoted price for installation from an electrician.
I am satisfied that the tenant has removed the extractor fan, which is supported in the photographs provided. The tenant must return the chattels at the end of the tenancy, and is liable for the replacement cost if she fails to do so. Oven cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation to clean the oven, which took about an hour, including products.
I am satisfied that the oven was not returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, so the tenant must compensate the landlord for the time and materials. The landlord claims $48.10. That claim is reasonable and is ordered in full. Cleaning kitchen bench
The landlord seeks compensation of $25.00 for cleaning the kitchen bench and clearing food scraps.
I am satisfied the kitchen bench was not returned reasonably clean and tidy, this claim is established, so it is ordered in full. Removal of safety catches
The landlord claims $15.00 labour to remove safety catches with isopropyl alcohol, the tenant applied to kitchen cabinets. Some of the cabinets were damaged, so they required touching up with white paint.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord needed to remove the safety catches the tenant applied to the cabinets. This claim is reasonable, and is ordered in full. Repaint kitchen cupboard.
The kitchen cupboard doors were painted. The landlord seeks compensation for repainting the doors because there were chips of paint off the doors.
I am not persuaded that this damage is anything other than fair wear and tear. The photographs do not in my view show damage that is excessive, or plainly outside the realms of fair wear and tear from a busy household. This claim has not been established. Cleaning kitchen cupboard
The landlord seeks compensation of $45.00 for cleaning the kitchen cupboards. The landlord states that the cupboard had not been cleaned out, and gave the example of sauce bottle drips and marks still in the cupboards that needed cleaning.
I have no reason not to consider that this cleaning was needed, and I am satisfied that then cupboards were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, this claim is ordered in full. Cleaning and painting hall wall
The landlord states there was a mark on the wall in the hallway that could not be cleaned, so required repainting.
I have considered the photograph provided by the landlord. This shows a small mark on the wall. I am not persuaded that this is beyond fair wear and tear, I find this has not been established as damage beyond that, so this claim is declined. Replacement of stainless steel stool
The landlord claims compensation for the replacement of one stainless steel stool, missing at the end of the tenancy. Two stools were provided at the start of the tenancy, but only one returned. The landlord seeks $95.00. for replacement of this item.
I am satisfied that this stool was not returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, so she is liable for the replacement cost. The claimed amount seems reasonable and is ordered in full. Cleaning hallway walls and repaint
The landlord submits that the hallway wall was dirty, more than reasonable, so repainting was required. The landlord claim $66.90 for sugarsoap and labour.
This claim is finely balanced, but when I consider the photographs, I am not able to conclude that the wall was not returned reasonably clean. I find this claim has not been established. Clean and clear fireplace
The wood burner was full of ash and material. The landlord claims $15.00 to clean and dispose of that.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the fireplace in a reasonably clean and tidy state, nor was the ‘rubbish’ inside the fire disposed of. This claim is established and ordered in full. Damage to windowsill
The tenant appears to have used a candle on the windowsill. Wax spilt onto the varnished sill damaging the varnish. The landlord needed to remove the wax, and revarnish the window sill. The landlord has claimed $30.00 labour.
I consider this damage to have been caused during the tenancy, and be damage beyond fair wear and tear. It would likely fall in the careless category. This claim has been established in full. Damage to floor and dinning in lounge
The landlord states that the floor in the lounge and dining room was damaged from a large and heavy bed being placed in the lounge and dining room, and being moved around, scratching the floor. The landlord describes deep scratching to the polished floor boards. The landlord claims $281.03 for materials and labour needed to sand and repolish the floor.
I consider this damage to have been caused during the tenancy, and is damage beyond fair wear and tear. It looks to have been caused when an item (presumably the bed) was pushed along the floor, scraping the floor. It would likely fall in the careless category. This claim has been established in full. Clean bathroom
The landlord states that the bathroom was not returned reasonably clean. The landlord seeks $75.40 for materials and labour.
The landlord described how he found the bathroom, including dust and hair and other debris around the bathroom, and other marks.
Based on the landlords description, I am satisfied that the bathroom was not returned reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is established. Replace showerhead
The landlord states that the shower head was broken around the thread with the hose. The landlord claims the cost for the replacement showerhead of $37.98.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Remove paint on walls and woodwork
The landlord states there was nail polish on the paint and bedroom woodwork that required removal and repainting and revarnishing. The landlord claims $25.00 labour.
This would be classed as damage. The damage is likely to have occurred during the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not shown it to be anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is established and ordered. Damage to shelf
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to a shelf in bedroom two, which he believes arose from someone standing on it. The landlord claims compensation of $30.00.
The landlord has provided a photograph showing a large chip off the edge of a polished timber shelf.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Damage to wall in bedroom
The landlord seeks compensation to remediate damage to a wall probably from a headboard damaging the wall behind it. Plastering and painting was needed. The landlord claims $90.00 labour.
I accept the damage is likely to occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. A tenant should be aware if their bedhead is close to the wall and to move it back to avoid damage. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Lampshade replacement
The landlord states lampshades above the kitchen island and bedroom 3 was removed and not returned. The replacement cost is $18.50.
The tenant must return all chattels, and is liable for the replacement cost for items not returned. This claim is ordered in full. Venetian blind
The landlord seeks compensation for creases in a venetian blind that the tenant removed so she could replace her own blinds. The venetian blind was returned, and the landlord confirmed he is using it now.
On balance, I find this claim cannot be ordered. While I accept the blind has been creased, the landlord is still using it, and I am not persuaded there is an appreciable loss to compensate here. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks compensation of $15.00 to deal with the tenants’ rubbish, and arrange for the rubbish company to come and remove it (and chase the truck up the road).
I find this claim has been established. The tenant needed to remove all rubbish or make arrangements for its removal at the end of the tenancy. Washroom basin
The landlord states that the washroom was not returned reasonably clean.
On balance I find this claim has not been established. Taking into account the photograph provided, I am not convinced this room was not returned reasonably clean and tidy, particularly taking into account this is a utility room. Damage to hearth
The landlord claims compensation for a cracked tile hearth. The landlord seeks $210.00 compensation as a round number for compensation, as to replace the hearth would be around $700.00.
The photographs do support that there is a crack to the centre tile of the hearth.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. The amount claimed seems a fair contribution to the replacement cost. Lawn work
The landlord claims $180.00 for labour to tidy the section.
The photographs do support that the grounds were not returned in a reasonably tidy state. I consider the claim would be reasonable for the work necessary and is ordered in full. Replacement tree
The landlord seeks compensation of $35.94 to replace a tree that was snapped off in the garden.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Paint removal windows
The landlord seeks $102.50 for labour and materials to remove spray paint from garage windows and on the surrounding paintwork.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Replacement garden edging
The landlord states that there was wooden garden edging that had been removed, and some replacement edging needed to be purchased. The landlord claims labour and costs of $45.00.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage (probably intentional if removed deliberately). This claim is established. Garage floor cleaning
The landlord states that oil was leaked onto the garage floor. The landlord seek $72.33 for cleaning materials and labour.
This is a cleaning claim. I am satisfied the garage was not returned in a reasonably clean state. The tenant is liable for this cost. Garage floor paint removal
The landlord seeks $30 for labour to remove spray paint on the garage floor. This is supported in the photographs. Again this is a cleaning claim, and it is established. Graffiti removal – garage door
The landlord seeks $188.19 for the removal of graffiti from the garage door.
Photographs confirm words have been sprayed on the inside of the garage door. The tenant is liable for the removal cost and remediation of this damage which is intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. Graffiti compensation – wheelie bin
The landlord seeks $10.00 compensation for graffiti sprayed on a wheelie bin.
This is supported in photographs provided. Compensation of $10.00 for loss of amenity and value of the bin seems reasonable and is ordered. Again this would be intentional damage. Rubbish removal exterior
The landlord seeks $78.00 for removal of rubbish and greenwaste outside the shed and garage. This is supported in photographs.
This claim is established. The tenant has not removed rubbish from the tenancy (including greenwaste), the tenant is liable for the cost incurred by the landlord in doing this work. Lock damage
The landlord seeks compensation of $25.00 for damage to a lock on a garage locker, where the lock has been damaged and needs replacement.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Lawn remediation
The landlord seeks compensation for work needed to restore and reseed the lawn, where the tenant had dug up a portion of the lawn next to the deck. The landlord claims $40.89 for grass seeds and labour.
On balance I find this claim has been established. The tenant needed to return the premises materially as she rented it. If the lawn has been dug up, the tenant is liable for the remediation cost. Oven manual
The landlord states that the oven manual was missing. He had another manual photocopied an bound commercially. The landlord seeks $34.50 for labour and binding costs.
I cannot see any reason the manual should not be treated as a missing chattel. The tenant must be liable for the replacement cost. Remote control replacement
The landlord states that the tenant did not return the garage remote control. The replacement cost is $270.00 to replace the remote and have it recoded.
This is a missing chattel. The tenant is liable for the replacement cost. Fireplace items missing
The landlord states that the fire bucket and broom were missing at the end of the tenancy, and seeks replacement costs of $19.90.
This is a chattel claim. The items were not returned to the landlord so must be compensated for by the tenant. The claim is reasonable. Revarnish bench top
The landlord seeks compensation of $30.00 to revarnish an area on the bench where the varnish has come away.
Considering the photographs, I am not persuaded that this is not a matter of fair wear and tear. This claim cannot be ordered against the tenant. Hose replacement
The landlord states that the hose was missing at the end of the tenancy. The replacement cost for a like for like replacement was $162.89.
Again this is a chattel claim. I accept the hose was not returned, so she must be liable for the replacement cost. Assisting tenants mother out of premises
The landlord claims $65.00 for assisting the tenants mother out of the premises. The evidence is that the tenants mother moved into the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I cannot see a legal basis to order this to be paid by the tenant. If there was an arrangement for the landlord to assist the tenants mother out of the dwelling, then that will be a matter to taken up with her. Missing gate latches
The landlord seeks $62.44 for materials and labour in replacing the latch from the gate, which was broken or missing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. This claim is established. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been mostly successful, the tenant may pay the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding.

TENANTS CLAIMS

There was no appearance by the tenant at the hearing. The tenants claim has not been advanced; it is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367861 — Property damage at 6 Birdwood Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367861 — Property damage at 6 Birdwood Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS