What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396669 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5396669?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396669?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13373649-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396669 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5396669?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396669?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13373649-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396669 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396669 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess - floor repair	$750.00	Insurance excess - floor repair
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in any publication of this order.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $750.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,650.00
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for bond refund and compensation for the stress resulting from the end of tenancy issues and delay in their bond being refunded and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants rented the premises from the landlord and lived in the home with their children for four years. There were no difficulties during the tenancy.
The landlord gave 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy as they wished to sell the premises. The tenants purchased their own home, and the parties agreed to an extended end date to accommodate this. The tenancy ended on 8 November 2025. The tenant completed their final clean and returned the keys on 9 November 2025.

Are the tenants 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 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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Wall damage – The landlord claimed that there was damage to walls as a result of the tenant affixing things to the walls during the tenancy and that this was not rectified at the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated they remedied any marks on walls with the exception of the garage as the owner arrived while they were doing this and instructed them to stop and that his painters would complete as they were repainting the premises As there were no photographs of the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy, I find that the claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities. (b)Carpet damage – The landlord claimed that the carpet was damaged due to pet odour. The tenants had the carpet professionally cleaned on 9 November 2025 and stated there was no mention by the property manager on 10 November of an odour at the exit inspection. However, on 11 November the owner raised the issue of an odour so the landlord arranged a further carpet clean on 13 November. The tenants claimed any odour was while the carpet was drying. The landlord provided an email from their carpet cleaner which stated that the technician noted a strong dog odour which he believed to be more of a “general doggy odour” (typically from pet hair/dander) rather than urine so did not investigate further. The email included the statement “It is worth noting that when carpets have heavy pet hair/dander soiling, the associated odours can initially become more apparent during cleaning as these odours are lifted into the atmosphere, but the clean removes the source of the odour and then the property may require some ventilation (ie. it can get worse before it gets better), but this is a necessary part of the process.” As the tenant arranged a professional carpet clean, and the landlord arranged a further clean very soon afterwards it is not possible to ascertain whether any odour was the result of the cleaning and would have disappeared. I am not satisfied in this case the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the carpet at the end of the tenancy that was not remedied. (c)Floor damage – The landlord provided photographs of scratches to the floor at the end of the tenancy in the living room and bedroom. The tenants accepted this damage. The landlord sought reimbursement of the insurance excess of $750 and provided quotes for the cost of repair which were greater than the excess amount. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord provided proof of the insurance excess. The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for the delay in bond refund?

The tenants seek compensation for the stress resulting from the end of tenancy disagreement regarding the bond and the resulting delay in their bond being refunded to them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, in this case the claim relates to issues that arose following the end of the tenancy when the tenants were no longer living in the premises as there was a disagreement regarding the bond refund.
It is acknowledged that the Tribunal process can be stressful and time consuming for parties, however, this is the forum for resolving issues when parties cannot agree.
As the claim does not relate to the tenant’s use of the premises it is dismissed. Filing fee/Suppression
As both parties have had some success regarding their claims, I make no order regarding reimbursement of either filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the nature of the claims the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in their identities and orders name suppression as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396669 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess - floor repair	$750.00	Insurance excess - floor repair
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in any publication of this order.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $750.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,650.00
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for bond refund and compensation for the stress resulting from the end of tenancy issues and delay in their bond being refunded and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants rented the premises from the landlord and lived in the home with their children for four years. There were no difficulties during the tenancy.
The landlord gave 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy as they wished to sell the premises. The tenants purchased their own home, and the parties agreed to an extended end date to accommodate this. The tenancy ended on 8 November 2025. The tenant completed their final clean and returned the keys on 9 November 2025.

Are the tenants 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 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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Wall damage – The landlord claimed that there was damage to walls as a result of the tenant affixing things to the walls during the tenancy and that this was not rectified at the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated they remedied any marks on walls with the exception of the garage as the owner arrived while they were doing this and instructed them to stop and that his painters would complete as they were repainting the premises As there were no photographs of the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy, I find that the claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities. (b)Carpet damage – The landlord claimed that the carpet was damaged due to pet odour. The tenants had the carpet professionally cleaned on 9 November 2025 and stated there was no mention by the property manager on 10 November of an odour at the exit inspection. However, on 11 November the owner raised the issue of an odour so the landlord arranged a further carpet clean on 13 November. The tenants claimed any odour was while the carpet was drying. The landlord provided an email from their carpet cleaner which stated that the technician noted a strong dog odour which he believed to be more of a “general doggy odour” (typically from pet hair/dander) rather than urine so did not investigate further. The email included the statement “It is worth noting that when carpets have heavy pet hair/dander soiling, the associated odours can initially become more apparent during cleaning as these odours are lifted into the atmosphere, but the clean removes the source of the odour and then the property may require some ventilation (ie. it can get worse before it gets better), but this is a necessary part of the process.” As the tenant arranged a professional carpet clean, and the landlord arranged a further clean very soon afterwards it is not possible to ascertain whether any odour was the result of the cleaning and would have disappeared. I am not satisfied in this case the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the carpet at the end of the tenancy that was not remedied. (c)Floor damage – The landlord provided photographs of scratches to the floor at the end of the tenancy in the living room and bedroom. The tenants accepted this damage. The landlord sought reimbursement of the insurance excess of $750 and provided quotes for the cost of repair which were greater than the excess amount. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord provided proof of the insurance excess. The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for the delay in bond refund?

The tenants seek compensation for the stress resulting from the end of tenancy disagreement regarding the bond and the resulting delay in their bond being refunded to them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, in this case the claim relates to issues that arose following the end of the tenancy when the tenants were no longer living in the premises as there was a disagreement regarding the bond refund.
It is acknowledged that the Tribunal process can be stressful and time consuming for parties, however, this is the forum for resolving issues when parties cannot agree.
As the claim does not relate to the tenant’s use of the premises it is dismissed. Filing fee/Suppression
As both parties have had some success regarding their claims, I make no order regarding reimbursement of either filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the nature of the claims the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in their identities and orders name suppression as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396669 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396669 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for the delay in bond refund?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for the delay in bond refund?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions