What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383203 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5383203?

Clothesline: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383203?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13203679-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383203 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5383203?

Clothesline: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383203?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13203679-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5383203 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5383203 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: clothesline	$100.00	Repairs: clothesline
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was heard by video. [The landlord’s representative] appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 11 August 2023. On 07 May 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears and refunded the bond to the landlord.
On 06 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet, ii. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy, iii. Failed to remove all rubbish, and iv. Was responsible for damage to power points and the clothesline.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the act or omission constituting the breach of the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
[The landlord’s representative] has not been the property manager for this tenancy and has only become involved after the application was filed. While she was aware of the matter before the Tribunal on 07 May 2024, it appears she may not have been aware of another application filed by the landlord on 19 June 2024, which is relevant to the outcome of this matter.
The application filed on 19 June 2024 included claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawns. The landlord did not attend the scheduled hearing on 12 August 2024, and the Tribunal dismissed those claims. No application for a rehearing or appeal was made. The claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawns in the present application are the same as the ones dismissed on 12 August 2024.
The issue arises as to whether those claims, having been dismissed, may be brought again. Law
Section 80 of the Act provides that, subject to sections 105 and 117 to 120 (which deal with rehearings and appeals), every order made by the Tribunal, unless it is expressed to be an interim order, is final and binding on all parties. This means that once a decision is made and there is no successful rehearing or appeal, the matter is settled and cannot be re-litigated between the same parties. This provision upholds the finality of Tribunal decisions and reflects the principle of res judicata.
Res judicata is a legal principle preventing the same dispute between the same parties from being heard more than once after it has been finally determined by the Tribunal. Analysis and decision
I am satisfied that [The landlord’s representative] was unaware that the claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawns had previously been made and dealt with by the Tribunal on 12 August 2024. However, pursuant to section 80 of the Act and the principle of res judicata those claims cannot be brought again. They are therefore dismissed. Other claims
The remaining claims concerning alleged damage to the clothesline, and electrical sockets have not previously been dealt with
The property was built in the 1970s and has been renovated. It comprises of two bedrooms, open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area, a bathroom, and a laundry.
The landlord has provided a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection report, together with enlarged photographs of some areas. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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.
The landlord does not have insurance and the tenant’s liability for any careless damage is limited to four weeks rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision Electrical socket
There is a photograph of a power socket in the lounge which has come away from the wall. I am unable to determine the location and condition of the socket at the commencement of the tenancy. I note that there is pre-existing damage to a light fitting. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. Even if I had been satisfied, I would not have determined that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Clothesline
There is a metal rotary clothesline at the rear of the property. The end of tenancy inspection photographs show that the clothesline has suffered significant damage. The pre tenancy photographs of the clothesline do not show any obvious damage.
In this case I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. The nature of the damage suggests that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is claiming $376.33 to replace the clothesline.
Clotheslines in rental properties typically have an expected useful life span of around 10 years. I note that the clothesline was not new at the commencement of the tenancy and showed signs of wear and tear. To reflect betterment, I reduce the claim and award the landlord $100.00 toward replacement. Costs
Were a party has been partly successful, the Tribunal may order reimbursement of the filing fee. In this case no order for costs is made. Name suppression
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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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.
The tenant been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has previously been granted name suppression. Although not wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, I am satisfied that suppression should continue.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5383203 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: clothesline	$100.00	Repairs: clothesline
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was heard by video. [The landlord’s representative] appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 11 August 2023. On 07 May 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears and refunded the bond to the landlord.
On 06 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet, ii. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy, iii. Failed to remove all rubbish, and iv. Was responsible for damage to power points and the clothesline.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the act or omission constituting the breach of the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
[The landlord’s representative] has not been the property manager for this tenancy and has only become involved after the application was filed. While she was aware of the matter before the Tribunal on 07 May 2024, it appears she may not have been aware of another application filed by the landlord on 19 June 2024, which is relevant to the outcome of this matter.
The application filed on 19 June 2024 included claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawns. The landlord did not attend the scheduled hearing on 12 August 2024, and the Tribunal dismissed those claims. No application for a rehearing or appeal was made. The claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawns in the present application are the same as the ones dismissed on 12 August 2024.
The issue arises as to whether those claims, having been dismissed, may be brought again. Law
Section 80 of the Act provides that, subject to sections 105 and 117 to 120 (which deal with rehearings and appeals), every order made by the Tribunal, unless it is expressed to be an interim order, is final and binding on all parties. This means that once a decision is made and there is no successful rehearing or appeal, the matter is settled and cannot be re-litigated between the same parties. This provision upholds the finality of Tribunal decisions and reflects the principle of res judicata.
Res judicata is a legal principle preventing the same dispute between the same parties from being heard more than once after it has been finally determined by the Tribunal. Analysis and decision
I am satisfied that [The landlord’s representative] was unaware that the claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawns had previously been made and dealt with by the Tribunal on 12 August 2024. However, pursuant to section 80 of the Act and the principle of res judicata those claims cannot be brought again. They are therefore dismissed. Other claims
The remaining claims concerning alleged damage to the clothesline, and electrical sockets have not previously been dealt with
The property was built in the 1970s and has been renovated. It comprises of two bedrooms, open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area, a bathroom, and a laundry.
The landlord has provided a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection report, together with enlarged photographs of some areas. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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.
The landlord does not have insurance and the tenant’s liability for any careless damage is limited to four weeks rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision Electrical socket
There is a photograph of a power socket in the lounge which has come away from the wall. I am unable to determine the location and condition of the socket at the commencement of the tenancy. I note that there is pre-existing damage to a light fitting. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. Even if I had been satisfied, I would not have determined that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Clothesline
There is a metal rotary clothesline at the rear of the property. The end of tenancy inspection photographs show that the clothesline has suffered significant damage. The pre tenancy photographs of the clothesline do not show any obvious damage.
In this case I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. The nature of the damage suggests that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is claiming $376.33 to replace the clothesline.
Clotheslines in rental properties typically have an expected useful life span of around 10 years. I note that the clothesline was not new at the commencement of the tenancy and showed signs of wear and tear. To reflect betterment, I reduce the claim and award the landlord $100.00 toward replacement. Costs
Were a party has been partly successful, the Tribunal may order reimbursement of the filing fee. In this case no order for costs is made. Name suppression
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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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.
The tenant been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has previously been granted name suppression. Although not wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, I am satisfied that suppression should continue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5383203 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5383203 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions