What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368543 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 5368543?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.98 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Flooring, Door, Blind: $1,814.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368543?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13391142-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368543 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 5368543?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.98 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Flooring, Door, Blind: $1,814.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368543?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13391142-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368543 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368543 — net $2,608.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 October 2025	$428.57	Rent arrears to 9 October 2025
Repairs: Flooring, door, blind	$1,814.00	Repairs: Flooring, door, blind
Cleaning	$240.00	Cleaning
Garage floor cleaning	$97.98	Garage floor cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,608.55
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,608.55

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,608.55 from the bond, as calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,608.55 [The tenant/s]: $31.45

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, compensation and damages for a failure to maintain and retaliatory notice(s).
The landlord has made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced in December 2020 and ended on 9 October 2025. Burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. The party bringing the claim must establish it on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the claim is more likely than not to be correct.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, it is for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If they fail to do so, the claim must be dismissed regardless of its apparent merit. The Tribunal does not investigate or obtain evidence on behalf of the parties.
Absolute certainty is not required. The Tribunal must weigh all of the evidence, including oral evidence, and determine what is more probable. Landlord’s claims Rent arrears
The tenancy commenced on 2 December 2020 and ended on 9 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing of $428.57 at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not consider that she was in arrears but provided no evidence identifying any error or inaccuracy in the rent records. I am satisfied the landlord’s records are reliable and that the arrears claimed are proved.

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 claims cleaning costs totalling $240.00, together with a further $97.98 for cleaning oil staining from the garage floor. The areas said to require further cleaning included bathroom cabinetry, bathroom and kitchen floors, rubbish beneath the vanity, oil staining in the garage and laundry and ceilings and light fittings.
The tenant disputes that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs show that cleaning was undertaken by the tenant. However, I am satisfied that some areas required additional cleaning to meet the statutory standard. The costs claimed reasonably reflect the work required.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage to the premises
A landlord must first establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. If that is established, the tenant must show that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
Tenants are also responsible for the acts of persons at the premises with their permission (ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA).
The landlord claims compensation for: a. Damage to a blind of - $189.00. b. Damaged to an internal garage door of - $275.00. c. Replacement of carpet required due to a burn mark – insurance excess $650.00. d. Replacement carpet due to staining – insurance excess $650. e. Replacement of vinyl flooring due to staining – insurance excess $650.
The landlord has provided ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and photographs.
The evidence shows: a. Splatter to the bedroom blind. b. Impact damage to the internal garage door resulting in a crack. c. A circular burn mark to bedroom carpet that could not be repaired. d. Additional carpet staining that professional cleaning could not remove; and e. Staining to the vinyl consistent with accidental spillage such as hair dye.
The landlord advised that the carpet was approximately 10-15 years old and the vinyl approximately 10 years, but both were in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant did not dispute damage to the blind, internal garage door, or the burn mark to the carpet, and accepted some responsibility for attempted stain removal.
I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the landlord’s evidence.
I am satisfied that; damage occurred during the tenancy to the flooring, a blind, and the internal garage door, that this damage exceeded fair wear and tear, and that the tenant has not disproved liability. Quantum and betterment
The landlord seeks recovery of three insurance excesses relating to replacement of carpet and vinyl.
I have found that the damage was careless and covered by insurance. Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA therefore applies, limiting the tenant’s liability to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
However, even where only an insurance excess is claimed, the Tribunal must ensure that any award does not result in betterment. The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, not to place them in a better position.
The carpet and vinyl were approximately ten years old and approaching the latter part of their useful lives. Had the tenant’s breach not occurred, the landlord would have continued with flooring of that age and condition and would likely have needed to replace it in the near future at their own cost.
As a result of the damage and insurance claims, the landlord has obtained new flooring earlier than would otherwise have been the case. This provides a material benefit and results in residual betterment.
Balancing: a. The tenant’s responsibility for damage requiring replacement, b. The age and condition of the flooring, and c. The fact that some staining is consistent with fair wear and tear,
I have reduced each claimed insurance excess from $650.00 to $450.00.
Accordingly, I have awarded: $1,350.00 for insurance excesses for the flooring, $189.00 for the blind damage and $275.00 for the internal garage door repair, totalling $1,814.00. Tenant’s claims Failure to maintain
The tenant alleges breaches of the landlord’s maintenance obligations under s45 of the RTA, including issues relating to plumbing, water leaks, staining, paint damage, and roof dampness and mould.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded (s45(1A), Schedule 1A RTA).
The evidence shows that the tenant raised maintenance issues through the tenancy, including roof concerns in 2021 and plumbing issues in early 2025. Then correspondence indicate that the landlord responded, liaised with the owners, and arranged repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Some issues required more than one visit (by the owner or contractor), which does not of itself establish a breach.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in breach of s45 of the RTA and the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The tenant claims that several 14-day notices and the final termination notice were retaliatory.
The RTA does not provide for 14-day notices issued under s56 to be declared retaliatory. Only notices terminating a tenancy may be challenged as retaliatory. Accordingly, I can consider this claim only in relation to the termination notice.
On 11 September 2025, the landlord issued a notice terminating the tenancy effective 10 December 2025.
To succeed the tenant must prove that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenancy exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or the RTA, or by a complaint made against the landlord (s54(1) RTA).
The tenant relies on ongoing maintenance requests and requests for inspection report. The landlord disputes retaliation and provided an instruction from the owners stating that after a five-year tenancy they wished to assess their options for the property.
The evidence shows that the tenant asserted her rights throughout the tenancy, not just immediately prior to the termination notice. I am not satisfied that the termination was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising her rights or making a complaint.
The claim for retaliatory notice and exemplary damages is dismissed. Other matters
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the filing fee is reimbursed.
Both parties seek name suppression. Although the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenant achieved a reduction in the amount claimed and was reasonably entitled to challenge the claims.
Balancing the parties’ private interests against the public interest in publication, I am satisfied that suppression is appropriate in this case (s 95A RTA). R Harvey-Lane 2 April 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368543 — net $2,608.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 October 2025	$428.57	Rent arrears to 9 October 2025
Repairs: Flooring, door, blind	$1,814.00	Repairs: Flooring, door, blind
Cleaning	$240.00	Cleaning
Garage floor cleaning	$97.98	Garage floor cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,608.55
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,608.55

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,608.55 from the bond, as calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,608.55 [The tenant/s]: $31.45

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, compensation and damages for a failure to maintain and retaliatory notice(s).
The landlord has made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced in December 2020 and ended on 9 October 2025. Burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. The party bringing the claim must establish it on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the claim is more likely than not to be correct.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, it is for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If they fail to do so, the claim must be dismissed regardless of its apparent merit. The Tribunal does not investigate or obtain evidence on behalf of the parties.
Absolute certainty is not required. The Tribunal must weigh all of the evidence, including oral evidence, and determine what is more probable. Landlord’s claims Rent arrears
The tenancy commenced on 2 December 2020 and ended on 9 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing of $428.57 at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not consider that she was in arrears but provided no evidence identifying any error or inaccuracy in the rent records. I am satisfied the landlord’s records are reliable and that the arrears claimed are proved.

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 claims cleaning costs totalling $240.00, together with a further $97.98 for cleaning oil staining from the garage floor. The areas said to require further cleaning included bathroom cabinetry, bathroom and kitchen floors, rubbish beneath the vanity, oil staining in the garage and laundry and ceilings and light fittings.
The tenant disputes that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs show that cleaning was undertaken by the tenant. However, I am satisfied that some areas required additional cleaning to meet the statutory standard. The costs claimed reasonably reflect the work required.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage to the premises
A landlord must first establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. If that is established, the tenant must show that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
Tenants are also responsible for the acts of persons at the premises with their permission (ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA).
The landlord claims compensation for: a. Damage to a blind of - $189.00. b. Damaged to an internal garage door of - $275.00. c. Replacement of carpet required due to a burn mark – insurance excess $650.00. d. Replacement carpet due to staining – insurance excess $650. e. Replacement of vinyl flooring due to staining – insurance excess $650.
The landlord has provided ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and photographs.
The evidence shows: a. Splatter to the bedroom blind. b. Impact damage to the internal garage door resulting in a crack. c. A circular burn mark to bedroom carpet that could not be repaired. d. Additional carpet staining that professional cleaning could not remove; and e. Staining to the vinyl consistent with accidental spillage such as hair dye.
The landlord advised that the carpet was approximately 10-15 years old and the vinyl approximately 10 years, but both were in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant did not dispute damage to the blind, internal garage door, or the burn mark to the carpet, and accepted some responsibility for attempted stain removal.
I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the landlord’s evidence.
I am satisfied that; damage occurred during the tenancy to the flooring, a blind, and the internal garage door, that this damage exceeded fair wear and tear, and that the tenant has not disproved liability. Quantum and betterment
The landlord seeks recovery of three insurance excesses relating to replacement of carpet and vinyl.
I have found that the damage was careless and covered by insurance. Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA therefore applies, limiting the tenant’s liability to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
However, even where only an insurance excess is claimed, the Tribunal must ensure that any award does not result in betterment. The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, not to place them in a better position.
The carpet and vinyl were approximately ten years old and approaching the latter part of their useful lives. Had the tenant’s breach not occurred, the landlord would have continued with flooring of that age and condition and would likely have needed to replace it in the near future at their own cost.
As a result of the damage and insurance claims, the landlord has obtained new flooring earlier than would otherwise have been the case. This provides a material benefit and results in residual betterment.
Balancing: a. The tenant’s responsibility for damage requiring replacement, b. The age and condition of the flooring, and c. The fact that some staining is consistent with fair wear and tear,
I have reduced each claimed insurance excess from $650.00 to $450.00.
Accordingly, I have awarded: $1,350.00 for insurance excesses for the flooring, $189.00 for the blind damage and $275.00 for the internal garage door repair, totalling $1,814.00. Tenant’s claims Failure to maintain
The tenant alleges breaches of the landlord’s maintenance obligations under s45 of the RTA, including issues relating to plumbing, water leaks, staining, paint damage, and roof dampness and mould.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded (s45(1A), Schedule 1A RTA).
The evidence shows that the tenant raised maintenance issues through the tenancy, including roof concerns in 2021 and plumbing issues in early 2025. Then correspondence indicate that the landlord responded, liaised with the owners, and arranged repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Some issues required more than one visit (by the owner or contractor), which does not of itself establish a breach.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in breach of s45 of the RTA and the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The tenant claims that several 14-day notices and the final termination notice were retaliatory.
The RTA does not provide for 14-day notices issued under s56 to be declared retaliatory. Only notices terminating a tenancy may be challenged as retaliatory. Accordingly, I can consider this claim only in relation to the termination notice.
On 11 September 2025, the landlord issued a notice terminating the tenancy effective 10 December 2025.
To succeed the tenant must prove that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenancy exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or the RTA, or by a complaint made against the landlord (s54(1) RTA).
The tenant relies on ongoing maintenance requests and requests for inspection report. The landlord disputes retaliation and provided an instruction from the owners stating that after a five-year tenancy they wished to assess their options for the property.
The evidence shows that the tenant asserted her rights throughout the tenancy, not just immediately prior to the termination notice. I am not satisfied that the termination was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising her rights or making a complaint.
The claim for retaliatory notice and exemplary damages is dismissed. Other matters
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the filing fee is reimbursed.
Both parties seek name suppression. Although the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenant achieved a reduction in the amount claimed and was reasonably entitled to challenge the claims.
Balancing the parties’ private interests against the public interest in publication, I am satisfied that suppression is appropriate in this case (s 95A RTA). R Harvey-Lane 2 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368543 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368543 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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