What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372341 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 5372341?

Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $1,435.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372341?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13373559-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372341 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 5372341?

Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $1,435.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372341?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13373559-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 Cambrian Street, Churton Park, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372341 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372341 — net $1,780.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpets	$1,435.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Repairs: damaged doors	$345.00	Repairs: damaged doors
Net award	$1,780.00
Bond	$3,683.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,780.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372341 — net $1,780.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpets	$1,435.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Repairs: damaged doors	$345.00	Repairs: damaged doors
Net award	$1,780.00
Bond	$3,683.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,780.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Jing Lin and Smart Property Management Limited $1,780.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,683.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Jing Lin and Smart Property Management Limited: $1,780.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,903.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Lin the owner attending together with Ms Campbell from Smart Property Management Limited (SPML).
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and recovery of cleaning costs incurred at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross application for rent arrears, and compensation, for door damage; replacement of a garage remote and replacement of carpets. Background facts
The tenancy ran for just under six years, starting on 23 November 2019 and ending by a 21 day notice from the tenants effective Sunday 21 September 2025.
When the tenancy ended, a property management company, Rent Better Property Management (Rent Better) was acting as property manager for the owner, Ms Lin. SPML was appointed as property manager from 26 September 2025.
An end of tenancy inspection was arranged for 22 September 2025. The tenants advised the landlord by email that they were unable to attend the inspection at the last minute; that there were still some belongings at the premises that they intended to collect that day; and that they would leave the keys and garage remote in the kitchen once they collected everything. The inspection was conducted by Ms Lin and a representative from Rent Better.
Following the inspection, Ms Lin and Rent Better were both in communication with the tenants and advised them of multiple cleaning and repairs that they believed the tenants were responsible to remedy. Email communications were exchanged between the parties including (amongst many others) the following: Tuesday 23 September 10.03 am from Rent Better to tenants: As you are aware the tenancy officially ended on 21 September, however, we’re not yet in a position to accept the return of the property due to its current condition. A number of cleaning and repair issues remain outstanding which are preventing us from completing the final inspection and preparing the property for re-letting. Please see below a list of the items that still need to be addressed........ [items listed] As the tenancy has already ended, this work should have been completed prior to 21 September. We kindly ask that all outstanding issues be resolved and the keys returned by the end of today so we can arrange the final inspection without further delay. If this is not done, we’ll need to proceed with arranging the necessary cleaning and repairs ourselves, with costs deducted from the bond or invoiced to you as per the tenancy agreement. Please confirm once everything is completed and the keys are ready to be returned. 23 September at 2.54 pm from tenants to rent Better Firstly, I need to point out that we have been living at the property for 5 years and 10 months.......wear and tear is to be expected.......I believe we have met the standard of ‘reasonably clean and tidy” and are not going to get the property cleaned any further......... I will attend to the following items, but would require until the end of the week to complete everything. I will try and get it done sooner, but I also want to do a thorough job. [items listed] As far as the stains on the carpet is concerned, I don’t believe that a professional clean will yield the desired results....wear and tear on carpets are to be expected...... Wednesday 24 September at 9.11am from tenants to Rent Better In this email the tenants sought clarity about several issues raised by the landlord; asked for photos of some of the issues; and also advised of several tasks already completed. They advised a painter would be painting the living room on the following Saturday and all other agreed tasks would be done by the following Sunday (28 September). The email also stated: If you require the keys to be handed over, then I’d be happy to do so. We’d appreciate access to complete the agreed tasks. 24 September Ms Lin sent several photos to the tenants showing cleaning and carpet stain issues. 25 September at 2.46pm from tenants to Ms Lin The tenants acknowledged the photos sent and advised that they would like to arrange professional cleaners to clean the house including the carpets and asked for the landlord’s preferred suppliers. 25 September at 9.54pm from Rent Better to tenants Thank you for your continued communication..... As you’re aware the tenancy officially ended on 21 st September, and the exit inspection was conducted on the 22 nd September. At that time, the property was not left in a satisfactory condition. While we appreciate your ongoing commitment to resolving these issues, we are now operating outside the formal tenancy period and need to finalise things as soon as possible. As mentioned in a separate email, professional cleaners and carpet cleaners can attend the property on Monday and Tuesday [28 and 29 September]. Following that, we ask that the final key handover take place by Tuesday at 5.00pm. You’re welcome to leave the key inside the property and simply confirm by message once this has been done—we’ll consider the handover complete at that point. If any stains or damage remain after the scheduled cleaning, we will assess and determine the appropriate steps in line with the condition report and the tenancy agreement.....
In addition to the above emails, there were several emails from Ms Lin after the termination date making a direct request that the tenants complete the work she required to clean and repair the property.
In summary, the tenants attended to further cleaning and repairs after the tenancy ended at the landlord’s request and with the landlord’s permission. They did not agree to clean the carpets as they did not believe the stains could be removed by cleaning and were also concerned that carpet replacement would be unfair because the carpets were worn through fair wear and tear. The agreed work was completed and keys returned to the landlord on 30 September, the final date stipulated by Rent Better in their email of 25 September.
It was only after the tenants had completed this work, that SPML sent an email on 30 September 2025 seeking 9 days extra rent because they say the tenants still had access to the premises after the termination date.

Do the tenants owe further rent after the termination date?

The tenancy ended on 21 September 2025 with the tenants paying rent up to that date. The landlord claims a further 9 days rent from 22—30 September 2025 on the basis that the tenants had not completely vacated the premises until 30 September 2025. That is because the landlord says that they had not removed all their belongings by that date; they had not completed all required cleaning and repairs; and they had not returned the keys to the premises. In an email from Ms Lin on 15 October, she alleges that the tenants remained in the premises without permission and refused to return the keys when asked.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they had vacated the premises on 21 September and that the belongings still there on the inspection day (22 September) were immediately removed that day after the inspection.
I also accept on the evidence that the landlord made it clear in their communications that they wanted the tenants to attend to the cleaning and repair issues they raised and they gave the tenants permission to access the house for that purpose. The email from Rent Better on 25 September is particularly telling, giving the tenants until 30 September to finish the items that were agreed at that point and to return the keys. Rent Better confirmed that if this was done they would “consider the handover complete at that point.” The tenants complied with the landlord’s wishes in that regard.
The landlord never suggested or advised the tenants that they would be charged rent until the repairs were completed. Had they done so, it is likely that the tenants would not have agreed to do the work. It would have made more sense for the tenants to compensate the landlords for the work than pay for, or do, the work themselves and also be liable for rent.
At no time during the numerous communications after 22 September did the landlord demand the return of the keys before 30 September and, indeed, the landlord was focussed on the tenants doing the work. When the tenants advised in their email of 24 September that they were happy to return the keys but would need access to complete repairs, the landlord did not respond to this offer and did not confirm that they wanted the keys returned.
After the termination date and inspection, it was entirely open to the landlord to demand the keys be returned and to refuse the tenants access. The landlord has no obligation to allow a tenant back to the premises after the termination date to complete any cleaning and repairs. It is the tenants duty to ensure they leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and repair any items for which they are responsible by the end of the tenancy. 1 If they fail to do so, the landlord is entitled to complete the work and recover the costs of doing so from the tenant, where the tenant is liable for the work. However, the landlord in this case did not pursue that option.
Rent liability ends when the tenancy ends. When the tenancy ends the tenants must return possession to the landlord and fulfil all their obligations in the RTA including to quit the premises, remove their belongings and return the keys. 2 All of these things are part of returning possession, but the legal obligation to pay rent ends when the tenancy ends, not when the keys are returned, or belongings are removed. Failure to return the keys or remove all belongings does not necessarily mean that the tenant has not vacated and or not given back possession. If a tenant has not vacated, the landlord’s remedy is to obtain an order for possession. 3 The landlord may be able to claim compensation for any actual loss suffered as a result of a tenant failing to quit the premises, return keys, or remove belongings. However, that is not ongoing rent.
In this case, I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenancy ended on 21 September; that the tenants had vacated the premises by that date, and removed all their belongings by 22 September. However, at the express request, and with consent, of the landlord, the tenants completed certain cleaning and repairs at the premises, then returned the keys. A prior offer by the tenants to return the keys earlier was ignored by the landlord. In requesting the tenants to carry out work at the premises, the landlord did not advise the tenants that, in doing so, the landlords would also change rent, and nor are they entitled to do so in those circumstances.
The landlord did not seek compensation for any loss suffered in the 9 days up to 30 September, and therefore I have not considered that issue. However, after 1 Sections 40(2)(c), 49A and 49B residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 40(1)(e) RTA 3 Section 64 RTA an, almost, six year tenancy, some cleaning and/or maintenance work would be expected between tenancies.
The claim for 9 days rent on the basis that the tenants did not vacate; did not remove all belongings; had not returned the keys; and had access without permission 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. 4
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). 5
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. 6
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.
Where damage is proved and results in replacement of items, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet replacement-Landlord case
The landlord claims that the carpets in the lounge, dining room, downstairs hallway, rumpus room and three of the bedrooms were stained at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s insurers arranged to clean the carpets but many of the stains could not be removed. The landlord then replaced the carpets in those 4 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA 6 See section 49B(1) RTA areas after receiving a cash payment from their insurers less an excess of $1,000 applied to each room. The landlord seeks the total excesses of $7,000 from the tenants.
The insurance excess disclosed in the insurance statement in the original tenancy agreement was $650. This was not updated in subsequent renewal documents when it increased to $1,000. A landlord is required to include in the tenancy agreement a statement setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability. 7 If anything changes so that the information that was included in the insurance statement is no longer correct, the landlord must provide the correct information in writing to the tenant within a reasonable time after the landlord becomes aware of the change. 8
The landlord did not advise the tenants of the increased excess. While I accept that this was probably an oversight, nevertheless the insurance statement, as required by the RTA, forms an important part of the tenancy agreement. The concern, where an excess is understated, is that had the tenants known of the greater excess, this may have alerted the tenants more appropriately to their potential liability for damages and may have led them to make different decisions to manage any damage. That is the major purpose of the insurance statement.
Therefore, I consider that the tenants are entitled to rely on the excess information provided in the tenancy agreement and the landlords are not entitled to claim the higher excess which was not disclosed to the tenants.
The landlord confirmed that she purchased the premises in 2019, shortly before the tenancy started. At the time, she says the carpets were not new and she does not know the age of the carpets. She says that the rumpus room carpet is likely older than the other carpets in the house. This means that when the tenancy ended in September 2025, the carpets were at least 6 years old or more, but the landlord cannot be certain of the age.
The landlord also provided some photos of the carpets taken before the tenancy began. The property inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement recorded that the floor coverings in all the rooms were in acceptable condition and no stains or marks were recorded.
By comparison, the landlord provided photos of the carpets taken at the end of the tenancy and further photos taken on 6 October 2025 (exit photos) after the carpets were cleaned. The landlord says that these photos show the remaining stains and justify the carpet replacement. 7 Section 13A(2)(b) RTA 8 Section 13A (4) RTA
The landlord provided quotes to replace the carpet obtained for the insurers from Carpet Court. There were three separate quotes for different areas totalling $11,008.50. However, in the end, the landlord used a different supplier, Precision Flooring Limited, and the carpet replacement cost was $9,717. This invoice is not broken down. Based on the Carpet Court quote, I make approximate calculations that the rumpus room carpet represented 30% of the overall cost; the lounge, dining and hall carpets represented approximately 35% of the cost; and the three bedroom carpets represented the remaining 35% of the cost. Tenant case
In their written submissions, the tenants accepted that they had caused some stains in the lounge and dining room during the tenancy for which they arranged carpet cleaning but not all stains could be removed and were still present at the end of the tenancy. They say that the landlord did not raise any further issue with those stains until the end of the tenancy. I consider the tenants are liable for the stains in those rooms if they were caused during the tenancy and were still present at the end of the tenancy. The tenants also accepted responsibility for those areas at the hearing.
In relation to other areas, the tenants argue: a. The rumpus carpet is very old and deteriorating as shown in photos where there is a split in the carpet. One corner was also patched because of a leak in November 2020, also acknowledged by the landlord; b. The stain in the corner of bedroom 4 (with the pink curtains) is also visible on the pre-tenancy inspection photos. I accept that is the case, but note that there are other stains showing in the exit photos; c. A stain under the bedroom 3 window was due to water leaking through the window reported to the landlord in July 2020. The landlord provided evidence that a leak was reported by the tenants in July 2020. She says she inspected the leak which was minor and she had the window fixed. She says she observed no water damage or staining on the carpet at the time. I accept the landlord’s submission that the tenants have not produced any evidence that they reported water on the carpet or staining. There are also other small stains in the room; d. The landlord’s agent noted that there was no pre-tenancy photo of the bedroom 2 wardrobe which had heavy pink staining at the end of the tenancy. Therefore it may have been there before the tenancy started. Also, the tenants claim one stain in bedroom 2 is underneath where they placed a bed because the bed indentations are obvious in a photo taken by the tenants. I am not persuaded that this proves they did not cause the stain; e. The carpets were old at the start and very worn, to the extent that the landlord installed metal strips on the hallway stairs to prevent slipping; f. Most of the stains are small and barely visible in photos taken after carpet cleaning at end of the tenancy Discussion and findings
After carefully considering all the evidence and comparing the photos produced, I make the following findings: a. Lounge, dining, hall: The landlord has proved that the carpets required replacement in the lounge and dining rooms. The downstairs hallway stains appear very minor. The approximate replacement cost of these carpets is $3,400. However, the landlord does not know the age of the carpets. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of carpet in a living area is 10-12 years old. The carpets here are more than 6 years old. While they appear in reasonable condition in the pre-tenancy photos, they could be 8- 10 years old at least. In those circumstances, I consider it fair to reduce the replacement costs for depreciation by 80% and award $680. Because this sum is less than the three insurance excesses (of $1,950) applied to these areas, the landlord is not entitled to the higher insurance excess amounts. b. Rumpus room: The landlord has proved there were stains and replacement was required. The approximate replacement cost of this carpet is $2,915. However, I am satisfied on the evidence that the rumpus carpet was older than other carpets in the house and very worn. It could be at least 10-12 years old, which is also the estimated lifetime of a living room carpet in current depreciation guidelines. In the circumstances, I consider that the carpet should be fully depreciated and no award is made. c. Three bedrooms: The landlord has proved some stains. However, there is also evidence that a stain in bedroom 4 and a stain in the bedroom 2 wardrobe existed before the tenancy started. The approximate carpet replacement costs for the bedrooms is $3,400. However, I consider it would only be fair to award the equivalent of carpet replacement in 2 rooms to take any pre-existing damage into account, which totals $2,266. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of bedroom carpet to be 12-14 years. The carpets here are more than 6 years old, and while they appear in reasonable condition in the pre-tenancy photos, they could be 8-10 years old at least. In those circumstances, I consider it fair to reduce the replacement costs for depreciation by 66% and award $755. Because this sum is less than the two insurance excesses (of $1,300) applied to two bedrooms, the landlord is not entitled to the higher insurance excess amounts. Damaged doors
I am satisfied on the evidence that two doors in bedroom 4 and the kitchen were damaged (with holes) during the tenancy and the tenants are liable for the repair costs of plastering the holes and painting the doors of $345. Garage remote
There was a crack along the side of one of the garage remotes. Because the remote was so old, it could not be replaced and the landlord had to replace the entire system. It seeks to recover the cost of one of the new remotes. I accept the tenants’ submission that the remote was working at the end of the tenancy and the crack is likely fair wear and tear. The claim for the replacement cost is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants entitled to reimbursement of the cleaning costs?

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord claimed that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. At first, the tenants disputed the claim and advised that they would not do further cleaning. Later, after receiving further emails and photos from the landlord, they agreed to engage a cleaner. They now consider that the cleaning the landlord required was beyond a “reasonably clean and tidy” condition for which they are liable. However, I find that they voluntarily agreed to engage cleaners and it would not be fair to pass this cost onto the landlord now. It is possible, that had they continued to dispute the cleaning, the landlord would have either cleaned the premises herself or engaged a different cleaning company, at a different price. The claim for reimbursement of the claiming is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Both parties have applied for suppression orders. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 9
In this case the tenants have substantially defended the landlord’s claims with the award to the landlord of $1,780 being far less than the amount sought in excess of $8,000. On that basis, the tenants are entitled to suppression.
Reimbursement of the filing fee must be awarded to the party who is wholly successful. Where a party is partly successful, reimbursement is at the Tribunal’s discretion. 10 Neither party was wholly successful here. Therefore, I 9 Section 95A(1) RTA 10 Section 102(4) RTA consider the filing fee costs should fall where they lie on each party. Neither is to reimburse the other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372341 — Property damage at 53 Cambrian Street, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372341 — Property damage at 53 Cambrian Street, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe further rent after the termination date?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to reimbursement of the cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe further rent after the termination date?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to reimbursement of the cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions