What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370362 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 5370362?

Cleaning: $60.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Including Labour And Paint: $412.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370362?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13207331-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370362 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 5370362?

Cleaning: $60.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Including Labour And Paint: $412.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370362?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13207331-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370362 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370362 — net $651.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$60.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: including labour and dump fees	$60.00	Rubbish removal: including labour and dump fees
Repairs: Repair of bathroom door	$90.00	Repairs: Repair of bathroom door
Repairs: Painting including labour and paint	$412.50	Repairs: Painting including labour and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$651.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$651.25

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370362 — net $651.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$60.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: including labour and dump fees	$60.00	Rubbish removal: including labour and dump fees
Repairs: Repair of bathroom door	$90.00	Repairs: Repair of bathroom door
Repairs: Painting including labour and paint	$412.50	Repairs: Painting including labour and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$651.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$651.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Highland Real Estate Group Limited As Agent For Marcel Norman Mckenzie And Rebecca Christine Mckenzie $651.25 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 20 October 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms McGrannachan, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 13 November 2020 with the fixed term expiring on 25 November 2021, there after the tenancy became periodic.
The tenants terminated the tenancy effective 26 September 2025.
The tenants filed a one-party claim with the Bond Centre for refund of the bond.
On 29 September 2025, the landlord’s advised the Bond Centre there was a dispute for compensation owed at the end of the tenancy.
For reasons unknown to the parties, the bond was refunded to the tenants in full on 15 October 2025. Landlord’s claims for compensation
The landlord seeks compensation as set out in the table below:

Did the tenants leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning they say was required to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy: a. Washing and rehanging lounge and bedroom curtains to remove cat hair: 1 hour b. Cleaning heat pump filters and the top of two heat pump units: 10 minutes c. Vacuuming living room and bedroom carpet to remove cat hair: 25 minutes d. Cleaning the top of the rangehood: 5 minutes e. Cleaning marks off the bedroom wall: 20 minutes
The landlord completed the work themselves and provided the Tribunal with an invoice showing an hourly rate of $45.00. The landlord seeks material costs totalling $30.00 for: a. Magic Block - $16.00 b. Birch Magic lint roller - $14.00
The tenants acknowledged failing to clean the curtains at the end of the tenancy and did not dispute the $45.00 labour costs.
The tenants stated that despite not being shown how, they routinely cleaned the heat pumps and filters during their tenancy. The tenants said that this stopped after the plastic casing of one of the filters broke because they were worried about causing additional damage. The tenants said they tried to replace the broken casing but were unable to do so.
The tenants refuted the landlord’s allegations they failed to return the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant said he is employed as a professional carpet cleaner and used his tools and knowledge to professionally clean and deodorise the carpets removing all cat hair. The tenant said the fluff balls shown in the end of tenancy photographs are actually balls of carpet fibre.
The tenants accepted they may have forgotten to clean the top of the range hood. With regard to the bedroom wall, the tenant said that their bed was placed against a wall that backed onto an exterior wall which would condense, and this caused the marks.
The Tribunal was provided with pre-tenancy inspection photographs which proved the property was provided to the tenants in a clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal was provided with exit inspection photographs which showed: a. Cat fur and a light mark on the back of curtains. b. Dust on the heat pump filters and on top of the heat pumps. c. A small amount of fluff on the carpet next to the edges of the room. The Tribunal understands that this was caused by the Property Manager scuffing their foot on the carpet to collect together the fluff. d. A long dark mark on the bedroom wall; and e. Dust on the rangehood.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to leave the curtains, heat pumps, bedroom wall and rangehood reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenants failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy. The Tribunal accepts the tenants evidence that the carpet was professionally cleaned and deodorised at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal awards $60.75 cleaning costs. The Tribunal declines to award compensation for the Magic Eraser or lint brush as the items can be kept and reused.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal costs in the following amounts: a. Disposal of items in the garage and throughout the house: 1 hours 30 minutes b. Disposal of rubbish left in the Council bins: 5 minutes c. Tip fee - $40.00
The tenant disputes the amount claimed stating that some of the items were present in the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs which prove the property was provided to the tenants free from rubbish. The end of tenancy photographs show the following items remaining at the end of the tenancy: a. In the garage: 2-3 flattened cardboard boxes, a bamboo shoe rack, a plastic fan, a plastic spray bottle, a couple of rags, and a small metal rack. b. In the house: a small pile of newspapers, two cleaning cloths, a small orange plastic bad containing rubbish, a baking dish, a plastic cover, a smoke alarm, and an empty aerosol can. c. The Council provided rubbish bin appeared to be full, and the plastic glass recycling crate contained glass bottles.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants left a small amount of rubbish behind at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to justify the labour costs. Based on the limited amount of rubbish collected the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to order rubbish removal costs totalling $60.00 – for labour and dump fees.

Did the tenants return the gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?

The landlord seeks compensation for one hours weeding of the courtyard area following the end of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy photographs show dried leaves in the garage, and evidence of weeds around the edge of the concrete. The exit photographs show petals on the driveway and some weeds around the edge of the concrete.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has failed to return the gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for the refrigerator?

The landlord seeks $250.00 compensation to replace a refrigerator that was provided at the commencement of the tenancy. No invoice for the replacement cost of a refrigerator was provided.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy the property came with a refrigerator that was working. At the end of the tenancy the refrigerator was located in the garage and did not work. The landlord did not know the age of the appliance but accepted it was “reasonably old”.
The tenants stated the refrigerator stopped working about three years ago and due to the strained nature of their relationship with the landlord they did not ask for it to be repaired or replaced. The tenants said they moved the refrigerator into the garage which the landlord would have seen during each of the subsequent property inspections. The tenants dispute being liable to pay compensation for an appliance they say was old and broken through no fault of theirs.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants have damaged the refrigerator causing it to stop working. The Tribunal cannot discount the appliance stopped working due to its age and on that basis the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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)of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 landlord seeks compensation for the following: a. Repainting the front of the house where the tenants installed a Catio: 2 hours b. Repainting the walls of the lounge due to cat scratches: 2 hours 30 minutes c. Patching and repainting the scotia and bedroom wall caused by the removal of strip lighting: 2 hours d. Patching a filling a large hole in the bathroom door: 2 hours e. Patching and repainting the entry walls due to damage caused by the Catio: 2 hours 30 minutes.
The landlord completed the work themselves and provided an invoice with an hourly rate of $45.00. The landlord seeks materials costs totalling $185.18 for: a. Ceiling paint - $130.15 ($60.00) b. Paint roller and sleeves - $24.34 c. Paint brush - $10.84 d. Colour match paint for lounge and bedroom walls - $55.00 e. Wall filler - $35.00
The landlord stated that prior to the commencement of the tenancy the property had been refurbished with new paint, vinyl, and carpet. At the end of the tenancy the landlord said the tenant had: a. Erected a Catio at the front of the property which had left small holes in the exterior cladding and marks which required patching and painting. b. The tenants cats had clawed at the wallpaper in the lounge which had to be repainted to disguise the damage. c. Had fixed strip lighting to the scotia in the bedroom which, when removed, damaged the paint, and required remediation. d. The Catio had caused damage to the white walled area of the entrance requiring remediation.
The tenants accepted liability for the damage to the scotia, bathroom door and marks to the lounge walls, but said that was caused by them moving their furniture and not by the cats. The tenants challenged the other amounts claimed stating: a. The Catio was freestanding with rubber matting between it and the exterior cladding to prevent damage. b. The Catio was not affixed to the entry and did not cause damage to the entrance.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal notes that the pre-tenancy inspection photographs show there was some areas of wear, tear, and marks on the lounge walls at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the following damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear: a. Damage to the bathroom door requiring patching and filling. b. Damage to the scotia requiring painting, including painting the bedroom wall. c. Additional scratches and marks to the lounge walls requiring painting to disguise the damage.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the Catio damaged the front of the property or the entry way. The pre- tenancy inspection photographs and exit photographs do not prove the damage claimed, and the claim for compensation for these areas is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders $292.50 in labour costs and $120.00 for filler, paint matching and half the costs of the paint. The Tribunal declines to award compensation for the paint roller and sleeves and paint brush as these items can be reused.

Did the tenant damage the heat pump casing?

The landlord seeks $90.00 compensation for damage to the heat pump casing. No invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with information about the age of the heat pump.
The tenants accepted the plastic heat pump casing was damaged towards the end of their tenancy and said it occurred while they were cleaning the filter. The tenants said they tried unsuccessfully to replace the damaged part.
Having heard from the parties the Tribunal is satisfied that the plastic casing was damaged by the tenants while cleaning the filter. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally. Based on the evidence available the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility the heat pump filter casing broke due to fair wear and tear given the age of the plastic and the claim for compensation is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for a blocked drain?

The landlord seeks $150.00 compensation for a blocked drain. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy they discovered an exterior drain was blocked with what they assume was the waste from the carpet clean. No invoice from a plumber was provided as the landlord cleared the drain themselves. Photographs of the material pulled from the blocked drain were provided.
The tenants state that the drain had not drained properly since the commencement of the tenancy. They said that at various times during the tenancy they had tried to water jet the drain and had used an industrial vacuum to suck 50 litres of stones from the pipe in an attempt to clear it.
For an award for compensation for plumbing costs the landlord needs to prove that the tenant, or someone at the property with the tenants consent, caused the blockage carelessly or intentionally and that the blockage was not due to fair wear and tear or some other obstruction (e.g. tree roots) old pipes or other structural issues.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the drain was blocked by the tenants through misuse or carelessness. The photographs provided show a small amount of carpet fibres and plant material were pulled from the drain and the Tribunal finds that this material was unlikely to cause a blockage. The Tribunal accepts the tenants evidence that there have been ongoing issues with the drain draining and that previously a large volume of stones were removed. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the blockage was caused carelessly or intentionally and the landlord’s the claim for compensation is dismissed. Other matters
Because Highland Real Estate Group Limited As Agent For Marcel Norman Mckenzie And Rebecca Christine Mckenzie has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant has been substantially successful in their defence of the claim and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370362 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370362 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenants return the gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for the refrigerator?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the heat pump casing?

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for a blocked drain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenants return the gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for the refrigerator?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the heat pump casing?

Is the tenant liable to pay compensation for a blocked drain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions