What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387221 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 5387221?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rehang Door And Replace Door Handle: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: replace carpet…: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $235.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $671.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387221?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13280436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387221 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 5387221?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rehang Door And Replace Door Handle: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: replace carpet…: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $235.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $671.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387221?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13280436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387221 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5387221 — net $2,286.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$235.75	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: rehang door and replace door handle	$224.25	Repairs: rehang door and replace door handle
Window repairs: reglaze ranchslider and bedroom window	$671.96	Window repairs: reglaze ranchslider and bedroom window
Replace furnishings: replace carpet in lounge and hallway	$690.00	Replace furnishings: replace carpet in lounge and hallway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,286.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,286.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Corrina Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $2,286.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing conference as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 15 June 2025.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $207.00 for cleaning the kitchen, mopping the kitchen floor, cleaning the oven and vacuuming the carpet, and $235.75 for rubbish removal and $230.00 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord provided an Inspection Report dated 17 June 2025, which contained photographs of the entry condition of each area of the property, alongside exit photographs of the same areas at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also provided an invoice in the amounts claimed for cleaning, rubbish removal and carpet cleaning, as claimed above.
The landlord highlighted photographs in the Inspection Report which showed dirty dishes and utensils left on the kitchen bench, food items left on the bench, food splatters on the stovetop, a dirty oven and many small bits of a fabric left all over the lounge carpet, that had to be vacuumed.
The landlord also pointed to photographs in the Inspection Report showing rubbish that had to be removed, which included 2 large mattresses, some kitchen applicants, the kitchen dishes, utensils and food items, a shell pool, a set of drawers, a chair and old sub-woofer box in the garage.
Further, the landlord showed photographs of the carpets in the lounge and hallway, which had paint stains and burn marks. The landlord said the tenants had a dog and the bedroom carpets smelled strongly of a dog odour so also had to be cleaned. The landlord said some of the paint stains were lifted with the carpet cleaning but some paint stains remained in the lounge and hallway carpets, as did the burn marks in the lounge carpet, so those 2 carpets had to be replaced, which is dealt with below.
From the evidence provided, namely the photographs of the condition of the property at the start and end of the tenancy and the invoices provided, I find the amounts claimed for cleaning, rubbish removal and carpet cleaning to be reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, I award the landlord $207.00 for cleaning costs, $235.75 for rubbish removal and $230.00 for carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy. These amounts are GST inclusive.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Door repairs a. Door repairs in the amount of $224.25. The landlord pointed to photographs showing the tenant had removed the lounge door completely and a missing door handle in bedroom 1 door. The landlord said the builder had to put in an additional door jamb to rehang the lounge door and replace the door handle in the door in bedroom 1 at a cost of $224.25. I find this to be a reasonable amount for these repairs. b. Given the evidence provided, I find the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and it was likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 29B RTA does not apply here. c. As such, the tenant is liable to pay $224.25 for these repairs. Depreciation does not apply here as the doors were repaired, not replaced. As such, I award the landlord $224.25 to repair and rehang these two doors. Glass repairs d. Glass door and bedroom window were reglazed at a cost of $671.96. The landlord provided photographs showing the bottom glass panel of the lounge ranchslider was boarded up, and that a bedroom window had been broken and the tenant had put up plastic cover on it. The landlord provided an invoice for repairing the ranchslider and replacing the ranchslider door handle, at a cost of $671.96. The invoice said that toughened safety glass was put into the ranchslider to repair it. e. Given the evidence provided, I find the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and, looking at the photographs and the size of the ranchslider panel broken, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. f. As only the glass was replaced, not the frames of the windows, depreciation does not apply here. g. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the full cost of repairing the ranchslider, which is $671.96. Carpet replacement h. The carpet in the lounge and hallway had to be replaced. The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the carpets in the lounge and hallway at the end of the tenancy and confirmed that carpet cleaning managed to remove some of the paint stains but not all of them, and that there were still burn marks left in the lounge carpet. From the evidence provided, I find it likely the carpets in the lounge and hallway had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy, due to tenant damage. I further find, given the evidence, that this is likely careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B cap. i. The landlord did not provide evidence of the total cost of the carpet replacement but said the landlord made an insurance claim to replace these carpets, which was accepted, and the landlord only paid the insurance excess of $1,150.00. This is the insurance excess amount listed in the tenancy agreement and so notified to the tenant. j. As the landlord did not provide any evidence as to the total cost of replacing these carpets, but did provide a receipt from [Carpet company] for the excess insurance paid in the amount of $1,150.00, and as this is the only amount available for the carpet replacement claim, I will use the amount of $1,150.00 as the carpet replacement cost. I find this cost to be reasonable, before considering depreciation. k. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where any item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. l. In relation to the age of the carpet, the landlord said the carpet had likely been replaced in around 2022. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of such carpets in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $1,150.00 cost I find reasonable to replace the carpet by 40% for depreciation to an award of $690.00 to replace the carpet. d. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression and are entitled to this because they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5387221 — net $2,286.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$235.75	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: rehang door and replace door handle	$224.25	Repairs: rehang door and replace door handle
Window repairs: reglaze ranchslider and bedroom window	$671.96	Window repairs: reglaze ranchslider and bedroom window
Replace furnishings: replace carpet in lounge and hallway	$690.00	Replace furnishings: replace carpet in lounge and hallway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,286.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,286.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Corrina Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $2,286.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing conference as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 15 June 2025.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $207.00 for cleaning the kitchen, mopping the kitchen floor, cleaning the oven and vacuuming the carpet, and $235.75 for rubbish removal and $230.00 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord provided an Inspection Report dated 17 June 2025, which contained photographs of the entry condition of each area of the property, alongside exit photographs of the same areas at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also provided an invoice in the amounts claimed for cleaning, rubbish removal and carpet cleaning, as claimed above.
The landlord highlighted photographs in the Inspection Report which showed dirty dishes and utensils left on the kitchen bench, food items left on the bench, food splatters on the stovetop, a dirty oven and many small bits of a fabric left all over the lounge carpet, that had to be vacuumed.
The landlord also pointed to photographs in the Inspection Report showing rubbish that had to be removed, which included 2 large mattresses, some kitchen applicants, the kitchen dishes, utensils and food items, a shell pool, a set of drawers, a chair and old sub-woofer box in the garage.
Further, the landlord showed photographs of the carpets in the lounge and hallway, which had paint stains and burn marks. The landlord said the tenants had a dog and the bedroom carpets smelled strongly of a dog odour so also had to be cleaned. The landlord said some of the paint stains were lifted with the carpet cleaning but some paint stains remained in the lounge and hallway carpets, as did the burn marks in the lounge carpet, so those 2 carpets had to be replaced, which is dealt with below.
From the evidence provided, namely the photographs of the condition of the property at the start and end of the tenancy and the invoices provided, I find the amounts claimed for cleaning, rubbish removal and carpet cleaning to be reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, I award the landlord $207.00 for cleaning costs, $235.75 for rubbish removal and $230.00 for carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy. These amounts are GST inclusive.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Door repairs a. Door repairs in the amount of $224.25. The landlord pointed to photographs showing the tenant had removed the lounge door completely and a missing door handle in bedroom 1 door. The landlord said the builder had to put in an additional door jamb to rehang the lounge door and replace the door handle in the door in bedroom 1 at a cost of $224.25. I find this to be a reasonable amount for these repairs. b. Given the evidence provided, I find the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and it was likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 29B RTA does not apply here. c. As such, the tenant is liable to pay $224.25 for these repairs. Depreciation does not apply here as the doors were repaired, not replaced. As such, I award the landlord $224.25 to repair and rehang these two doors. Glass repairs d. Glass door and bedroom window were reglazed at a cost of $671.96. The landlord provided photographs showing the bottom glass panel of the lounge ranchslider was boarded up, and that a bedroom window had been broken and the tenant had put up plastic cover on it. The landlord provided an invoice for repairing the ranchslider and replacing the ranchslider door handle, at a cost of $671.96. The invoice said that toughened safety glass was put into the ranchslider to repair it. e. Given the evidence provided, I find the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and, looking at the photographs and the size of the ranchslider panel broken, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. f. As only the glass was replaced, not the frames of the windows, depreciation does not apply here. g. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the full cost of repairing the ranchslider, which is $671.96. Carpet replacement h. The carpet in the lounge and hallway had to be replaced. The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the carpets in the lounge and hallway at the end of the tenancy and confirmed that carpet cleaning managed to remove some of the paint stains but not all of them, and that there were still burn marks left in the lounge carpet. From the evidence provided, I find it likely the carpets in the lounge and hallway had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy, due to tenant damage. I further find, given the evidence, that this is likely careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B cap. i. The landlord did not provide evidence of the total cost of the carpet replacement but said the landlord made an insurance claim to replace these carpets, which was accepted, and the landlord only paid the insurance excess of $1,150.00. This is the insurance excess amount listed in the tenancy agreement and so notified to the tenant. j. As the landlord did not provide any evidence as to the total cost of replacing these carpets, but did provide a receipt from [Carpet company] for the excess insurance paid in the amount of $1,150.00, and as this is the only amount available for the carpet replacement claim, I will use the amount of $1,150.00 as the carpet replacement cost. I find this cost to be reasonable, before considering depreciation. k. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where any item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. l. In relation to the age of the carpet, the landlord said the carpet had likely been replaced in around 2022. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of such carpets in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $1,150.00 cost I find reasonable to replace the carpet by 40% for depreciation to an award of $690.00 to replace the carpet. d. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression and are entitled to this because they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387221 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387221 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Claims & awards

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