What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376023 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 5376023?

Cleaning: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 1 Wardrobe: $341.17 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2 Cabinet Door By Consent: $156.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2 Wardrobe Handle: $74.74 awarded to landlord; Lounge Switchboard X 1: $89.72 awarded to landlord; Lounge Window X 1 By Consent: $398.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.88 awarded to landlord; Windowpane On Back Entrance Door: $408.65 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Door stoppers x…: $57.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind x…: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376023?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13556911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376023 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 5376023?

Cleaning: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 1 Wardrobe: $341.17 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2 Cabinet Door By Consent: $156.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2 Wardrobe Handle: $74.74 awarded to landlord; Lounge Switchboard X 1: $89.72 awarded to landlord; Lounge Window X 1 By Consent: $398.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.88 awarded to landlord; Windowpane On Back Entrance Door: $408.65 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Door stoppers x…: $57.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind x…: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376023?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13556911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5376023 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5376023 — net $3,523.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: By consent	$287.50	Rubbish removal: By consent
Repairs: Lounge window x 1 by consent	$398.65	Repairs: Lounge window x 1 by consent
Repairs: Windowpane on back entrance door	$408.65	Repairs: Windowpane on back entrance door
Repairs: Wall repair lounge	$186.88	Repairs: Wall repair lounge
Repairs: Bedroom 1 wall damage	$258.75	Repairs: Bedroom 1 wall damage
Repairs: Bedroom 2 wall damage	$316.25	Repairs: Bedroom 2 wall damage
Repairs: Bedroom 2 cabinet door by consent	$156.53	Repairs: Bedroom 2 cabinet door by consent
Repairs: Bedroom 1 wardrobe	$341.17	Repairs: Bedroom 1 wardrobe
Repairs: Lounge switchboard x 1	$89.72	Repairs: Lounge switchboard x 1
Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind x1	$189.75	Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind x1
Cleaning	$368.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Door stoppers x 5	$57.44	Replace furnishings: Door stoppers x 5
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$200.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: Bedroom 2 wardrobe handle	$74.74	Repairs: Bedroom 2 wardrobe handle
Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind replacement	$189.75	Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind replacement
Net award	$3,523.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,523.78

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5376023 — net $3,523.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: By consent	$287.50	Rubbish removal: By consent
Repairs: Lounge window x 1 by consent	$398.65	Repairs: Lounge window x 1 by consent
Repairs: Windowpane on back entrance door	$408.65	Repairs: Windowpane on back entrance door
Repairs: Wall repair lounge	$186.88	Repairs: Wall repair lounge
Repairs: Bedroom 1 wall damage	$258.75	Repairs: Bedroom 1 wall damage
Repairs: Bedroom 2 wall damage	$316.25	Repairs: Bedroom 2 wall damage
Repairs: Bedroom 2 cabinet door by consent	$156.53	Repairs: Bedroom 2 cabinet door by consent
Repairs: Bedroom 1 wardrobe	$341.17	Repairs: Bedroom 1 wardrobe
Repairs: Lounge switchboard x 1	$89.72	Repairs: Lounge switchboard x 1
Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind x1	$189.75	Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind x1
Cleaning	$368.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Door stoppers x 5	$57.44	Replace furnishings: Door stoppers x 5
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$200.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: Bedroom 2 wardrobe handle	$74.74	Repairs: Bedroom 2 wardrobe handle
Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind replacement	$189.75	Replace furnishings: Kitchen blind replacement
Net award	$3,523.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,523.78

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agents For Sd Homes Rentals Ltd $3,523.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. I note the bond has already been refunded according to the Bond services records.
The tenancy began on 6 August 2021 and ended on 24 September 2025. The Property Manager who appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Landlord stated that he had started managing this tenancy approximately six months ago. Prior to this it was a different Property Manager.
At the hearing the Tenant agreed to paying the Landlords claims for rubbish removal, repairing the bottom broken window in the lounge and bedroom 2 cupboard doors. The Landlord withdrew the claim for replacing the light cover on the bathroom ceiling.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claimed $368.00 for general cleaning and $322.00 for deep cleaning which included walls, ceilings, fixtures, windows, carpets, and floors, as well as the oven, rangehood, kitchen curtains, benchtop, cupboards, appliances, and wet areas. The Landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports, which showed some kitchen cupboards contained items from a previous tenancy. An invoice was submitted to substantiate the costs and an email from the Tenant at the end of the tenancy where they acknowledged the carpets were dirty.
The Tenant accepted there was black mould on the walls but stated it was caused by ongoing condensation despite ventilation and was not due to her actions.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the oven was left unclean and that mould was present on ceilings, walls, and windows. I find from the entry inspection photographs that many of the kitchen cupboards and drawers were already unclean at the start of the tenancy. The photographs do not support that the toilet and bathroom were left unclean. I therefore award $368.00 for both cleaning claims which covers the oven, mould clean, and carpet stains.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: smoke alarms and five door stoppers.
The landlord claimed costs for two smoke alarms missing at the end of the tenancy. The healthy homes statement disclosed there was only one alarm while the entry inspection reports showed a smoke alarm in the hallway and lounge. There was an exit report filed on 18 September 2025 which showed smoke alarms were present in the hallway and lounge. Because these were present, there is no need for replacement.
The claim for missing smoke alarms is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed costs for five door stoppers. These were present in the entry inspection and exit inspection reports. The Landlord provided an invoice to substantiate the costs.
The Tenant submitted that she did not recall seeing any of these door stoppers during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Damaged clothesline The Landlord claimed $343.44 for replacement of a damaged clothesline, stating the strings were broken at the end of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection report recorded the clothesline as in good condition and upright. The Landlord also stated the Tenant had not reported any issues at the start of the tenancy. The exit inspection report dated 18 September 2025 described the clothesline as in “good condition,” and photographs showed it upright. The Tenant stated the clothesline was unstable from the beginning of the tenancy and that she had reported this to the Landlord. She said no action was taken, and a temporary fix was made using a brick to stabilise it. Having considered the evidence, I find the Landlord’s evidence inconsistent. While it was claimed the clothesline required replacement due to broken strings, the exit inspection report described it as in good condition and showed it upright. In the absence of clear photographic evidence of damage at the end of the tenancy, I am not satisfied the Tenant is liable. The claim is dismissed. b) Bottom windowpane of back entrance door The Landlord claimed $408.65 for damage to a windowpane in the back door. The exit inspection photograph showed a crack in the bottom pane. At the hearing, the Landlord produced a further photograph showing the second pane from the bottom covered with a board and asserted this pane was also damaged. The Tenant stated she was only aware of the crack in the bottom pane, did not know how it occurred, and did not recognise the boarded pane. The exit inspection photographs do not show this pane as damaged or boarded. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the crack to the bottom pane was not present at the start of the tenancy and is confirmed by the exit inspection report. I find this damage was caused carelessly, and the repair cost is supported by the invoice. However, I am not satisfied the Tenant is responsible for damage to the second windowpane. The exit inspection photographs do not show it as boarded or damaged. I award the cost of repairing one windowpane only being $408.65 The amounts ordered are proved. c) Living room wall damage: The Landlord claimed $747.50 for damage to the living room walls and provided photographs showing several white patches on the walls. The Tenant denied causing this damage and stated she did not recognise the white patches. She accepted not cleaning the mould off the walls but denied any further damage. The exit inspection report showed a sticker on the lounge wall near the heat pump, ripped wallpaper in the same area, and dirt marks in one corner. It noted the walls required cleaning and that wallpaper was lifting in one area. There was no reference to extensive damage such as scratches or gouges, nor did the photographs show the white patch marks relied on by the Landlord. In considering the evidence, I do not accept that the Tenant caused the white patch marks shown in the Landlord’s photographs, as these appear to be repair work undertaken after the tenancy ended. Based on the exit inspection report and photographs, I am satisfied there were two limited areas of damage. I therefore award a reduced amount of $186.88, being the reasonable cost to repair one wall. d) Bedroom 1 wall damage The Landlord claimed $517.50 for repair and painting of the bedroom 1 walls. The entry inspection report recorded the walls as in good condition. The exit inspection report showed two stickers on different walls and marks consistent with sticker removal. The walls also showed black mould, and it was unclear whether this could have been cleaned without the need to repaint. The Tenant stated there was significant mould due to moisture and denied causing the white marks. Having considered the evidence, I find some of the wall damage was caused during the tenancy. The placement and removal of stickers on two walls amounts to careless damage. The entry inspection report confirms this damage was not present at the start of the tenancy, and the repair cost is supported by the invoice. However, the photographs do not clearly establish additional damage, as the shadows make this difficult to assess. I therefore award 50% of the amount claimed, being $258.75. The amount ordered is proved. d) Bedroom 2 wall damage The Landlord claimed $632.50 for wall damages. The entry inspection report did not record any damage. The exit inspection report described the walls as in good condition, although photographs showed some grey patches and gouges. The entry photographs were not close-up, making it unclear whether this damage was present at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant denied causing the wall damage. Having considered the evidence, I find some careless damage occurred during the tenancy, as indicated by the entry and exit inspection photographs. However, the extent of the damage is unclear due to the limited quality of the entry inspection photographs and the exit inspection report noting the walls as in good condition. I therefore award 50% of the amount claimed, being $316.25. The amounts ordered are proved. Bedroom 1 wardrobe rollers e) The Landlord claimed $341.17 for repair of the wardrobe doors. The entry inspection report records the doors as in good condition, while the exit inspection report shows one door off its tracks. The Tenant stated the doors would sometimes get stuck and come off the track, so the Tenant left the door off. She also confirmed the issue was not reported to the Landlord. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy and was caused carelessly. The Tenant’s failure to report the issue at the time makes it difficult to attribute the damage to fair wear and tear. The entry and exit inspection reports support this finding, and the cost of repair is substantiated. The amounts ordered are proved. f) Switchboard in bedroom 2 The Landlord claimed $89.72 to repair one switchboard in bedroom 2. A photograph was provided of the damaged switchboard at the end of the tenancy and a switchboard in good condition at the start. The Tenant denied seeing any damage during the tenancy stating her bed covered the switchboard so it was hardly in use. In considering the evidence I find from the inspection reports provided that the switchboard was damaged during the tenancy. There were other switch boards that did not appear to be damaged in the inspection reports so this was likely to have been caused carelessly. The amounts ordered are proved. Living room, bedroom 1 and 2 curtains g) The Landlord claimed $1,408.75 to replace curtains due to mould. The entry inspection report showed no mould on the curtains. The exit inspection recorded mould on some lounge and bedroom 1 curtains. The Landlord also provided a photograph of a van containing discarded items, including curtains. There was no evidence that attempts were made to clean the curtains before replacing them. The Tenant stated the property suffered from significant condensation and that she had raised concerns with the Landlord, although no evidence of this was provided. She accepted she did not clean the curtains during the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied replacement of the curtains was justified without first attempting to clean them. Had the Landlord taken the curtains to a professional curtain cleaner and obtained evidence that the mould could not be removed, this would have assisted their claim. I find the Tenant’s failure to clean the curtains contributed to their condition. I therefore award $200.00 as a reasonable contribution towards cleaning. The amounts ordered are proved. h) Sliding door in between kitchen and hallway The Landlord claimed $114.86 for repair of the sliding door between the kitchen and hallway. A photograph was provided showing a dent; however, the image was undated. The entry inspection report recorded the door as in good condition. The Tenant stated she was not aware of any damage. The exit inspection report contains no reference to damage to the door or photograph. Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied the Landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The alleged dent is significant and of a kind that would likely have been apparent and recorded at the end of the tenancy. Its absence from the exit inspection report, together with the lack of dated photographic evidence, undermines the claim. I accept the Tenant’s evidence that she did not cause the damage. The claim is dismissed. j) Replace sliding door pelmet between kitchen and living room The Landlord claimed $97.09 to repair the pelmet between the kitchen and living room. An invoice was provided to substantiate the repair. There was no photograph of the damage and it was not referred to in the exit inspection report. The Tenant denied the damage and advised that door was barely used because they kept it open. In considering the evidence, I find there is insufficient evidence from the Landlord to prove the damage. There was no evidence of this damage in the exit inspection report or photograph provided by the Landlord. The claim is dismissed. k) Bedroom 2 wardrobe handle The Landlord claimed $74.74 to replace the handle for the wardrobe in bedroom 2 which may have been caused by the Tenant applying major force to them. The entry inspection report showed there was a door handle present and the exit inspection report showed one was missing. An invoice was provided to substantiate the costs. The Tenant stated the door never had a handle from the start of the tenancy. In considering the evidence, I find from the property inspection reports show that a handle was removed during the tenancy. The amounts ordered are proved. l) Kitchen window blinds The Landlord claimed to replace two kitchen window blinds for $379.00 which were malfunctioning at the end of the tenancy. The entry inspection photographs showed these were in good condition. The exit inspection report showed one of the blinds were lifted at the bottom but also noted “needs cleaning”. There was no reference to the blinds being damaged. The Landlord claimed they were very dirty and oily which would have contributed to their malfunction. The Tenant accepted only one blind was not working properly during the tenancy but did not state whether she reported this damage or not. She did not agree with the second one being damaged. In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has accepted one of the blinds was damaged during the tenancy which is confirmed from the photographs of the exit inspection report. I cannot see any evidence of the second blind being damaged in the final inspection report and the Tenant was not aware of this. The invoice to replace the blinds, does not provide an explanation of the damage, and the final inspection report only states they needed cleaning. There was no evidence of what the damage was exactly, whether the dirt and oil caused the damage or whether this was wear and tear. For these reasons, I find it appropriate that the Tenant pay $189.75 for one blind replacement. m) Screen door damage The Landlord claimed $112.43 to replace the screen door due to a hole, relying on the entry and exit inspection reports and an invoice for replacement. The Tenant accepted there was a hole but stated it was present at the start of the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, the entry inspection report photographs confirms a hole existed at the commencement of the tenancy. While it appears to have enlarged over time, this was an existing defect that should have been addressed by the Landlord at the outset. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied the Tenant is liable for the replacement cost. The claim is dismissed. n) Shower door broken rollers The Landlord claimed $300.15 to replace four broken rollers on the shower doors. The Landlord relied on the entry and exit inspection reports along with an invoice to repair. They submitted this was caused by forceful handling of the doors. The Tenant stated this was always an issue and she had told the Landlord but could not find evidence of this notification. In considering the evidence, I note the entry inspection report states there was one roller missing. The exit inspection report states there were four broken rollers on the shower door. There is no independent evidence from an expert as to how the rollers were broken. Because one roller was missing at the start of the tenancy, I cannot be satisfied that the Tenant caused damage to the other four or whether it was wear and tear. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. o) Damaged fence The Landlord claimed $3,936.31 for damage to a neighbouring fence and swimming pool caused by a visitor of the Tenant. The Tenant accepted that her visitor caused the damage but disputed liability. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants arising under a tenancy agreement. The damage in question relates to property owned by a third party (the neighbour), and there is no direct tenancy relationship between the Tenant and the affected neighbour in respect of that loss. This claim falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as framed. The Landlord may pursue any remedy for this loss in the appropriate forum. The claim is dismissed.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful in defending their claims, name suppression is granted to the Tenant. As the Landlord has not been substantially successful in their claims, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5376023 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5376023 — 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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions