What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5398077 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 5398077?

Property Damage: $17.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; From Window Glass And Window Frames: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $19.17 awarded to landlord; Over Paid Rent: $804.29 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Cabinet Hook Removal: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398077?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13304450-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5398077 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 5398077?

Property Damage: $17.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; From Window Glass And Window Frames: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $19.17 awarded to landlord; Over Paid Rent: $804.29 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Cabinet Hook Removal: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398077?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13304450-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5398077 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398077 — net $90.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinet hook removal	$34.50		Repairs: Kitchen cabinet hook removal
Repairs: Upstairs stairwell repair and full wall painting	$155.25		Repairs: Upstairs stairwell repair and full wall painting
Repairs: Wall repair and full wall painting in the living	$258.75		Repairs: Wall repair and full wall painting in the living
Repairs: Wardrobe door repair and painting	$86.25		Repairs: Wardrobe door repair and painting
Batteries: Garage remote battery replacement	$17.25		Batteries: Garage remote battery replacement
Light bulbs: 3-in-1 heater bulb	$19.17		Light bulbs: 3-in-1 heater bulb
Cleaning: Removal of long-term built-up dirt and grime	$92.00		Cleaning: Removal of long-term built-up dirt and grime
from window glass and window frames	$23.00		from window glass and window frames
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Over paid rent		$804.29	Over paid rent
Total award	$714.17	$804.29
Net award		$90.12
Bond		$100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$90.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398077 — net $90.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinet hook removal	$34.50		Repairs: Kitchen cabinet hook removal
Repairs: Upstairs stairwell repair and full wall painting	$155.25		Repairs: Upstairs stairwell repair and full wall painting
Repairs: Wall repair and full wall painting in the living	$258.75		Repairs: Wall repair and full wall painting in the living
Repairs: Wardrobe door repair and painting	$86.25		Repairs: Wardrobe door repair and painting
Batteries: Garage remote battery replacement	$17.25		Batteries: Garage remote battery replacement
Light bulbs: 3-in-1 heater bulb	$19.17		Light bulbs: 3-in-1 heater bulb
Cleaning: Removal of long-term built-up dirt and grime	$92.00		Cleaning: Removal of long-term built-up dirt and grime
from window glass and window frames	$23.00		from window glass and window frames
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Over paid rent		$804.29	Over paid rent
Total award	$714.17	$804.29
Net award		$90.12
Bond		$100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$90.12

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Alesha Rose Kingham and Mataio Loli Silver Alama Fiaola Timaloa $90.12 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Alesha Rose Kingham and Mataio Loli Silver Alama Fiaola Timaloa immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
The tenancy commenced on 10 September 2022 and ended on 02 November 2025. The tenancy lasted just over 3 years.
[The property manager], the property manager, attended the hearing via video conference on behalf of the landlord.
Ms Kingham, one of the tenants, attended the hearing via video conference. However, she participated by audio only. The other tenant, Mr Timaloa, did not attend the hearing. Ms Kingham advised that her partner, Mr Timaloa, was looking after their child in the house. She was the person addressing me.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 2 November 2025. [The property manager] confirmed that the tenants overpaid the rent and that there is a credit in the trust account in favour of the tenants in the amount of $804.29.
During the hearing, I asked [The property manager] to identify which items on the contractor invoice were actually being pursued against the tenants. [The property manager] confirmed that a number of items listed in the invoice were not related to the tenants and were therefore not being claimed. In particular, she accepted that the kitchen wall repair and painting, the ensuite wall repair and painting, the towel rack and toilet paper holder reinforcement, and the plasterboard repair on the stair wall were unrelated to the tenants. Eight photos received after the hearing
At the end of the hearing, the landlord sent eight photos to support the claims for the removal of long-term built-up dirt and grime from window glass and window frames, and for cleaning the bathroom tap and removing built-up grime. I informed her that I did not have those eight photos on file. She said she had filed the photos with the Registry along with her other evidence.
Ms Kingham opposed the admission of the photos.
I do not know why the eight photos were not included in the landlord’s file. All I can say is that I did not have those eight photos at the start of the hearing. Ms Kingham also did not have those photos.
I have now viewed those photos. I have concluded that admitting the eight photos does not prejudice the tenants’ case because the photos provide a clearer view of the overall claims. See section 97(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Accordingly, the photos filed after the hearing are admitted into evidence.
I now turn to the claims. Kitchen cabinet hook removal
[The property manager] said the tenants had attached child-safety locks to the kitchen cabinet using adhesive hooks. She said the contractor charged $30 plus GST to remove them.
Ms Kingham acknowledged installing the baby safety locks when her child was young. She said they were adhesive and intended to be removable. She explained she left them in place because she did not want to damage the cabinetry when removing them. Wall repair and full wall painting in the living room
[The property manager] said that a television bracket had been installed on the living room wall and that when it was removed the tenants attempted to repair the wall themselves. She said the repair was unsatisfactory, leaving visible patches and uneven surfaces. She said there were approximately five patched areas in the living room and that the wall required repainting. The amount claimed for this work was $750 plus GST.
Ms Kingham accepted that a television had been mounted on the wall. She said she had obtained permission from a previous property manager to install the bracket and had been instructed to reinstate the wall at the end of the tenancy. She said she attempted to repair the holes using filler and paint colour matched at Bunnings. She said she acted in good faith and restored the wall to the best of her ability. Wardrobe door repair and painting
[The property manager] said there was a hole in a wardrobe door in bedroom two that had been patched by the tenants. She said the colour of the repair did not match the original surface and therefore the door required repainting. The amount claimed was $250 plus GST.
Ms Kingham accepted there had been a small hole and said she had repaired it in the same way as the living room wall by patching and repainting. She again said she had done so to the best of her ability using colour-matched paint. Upstairs stairwell wall repair and full wall painting
[The property manager] said that the stairwell wall also had patching and colour differences from repairs carried out by the tenants. She said the wall required repair and repainting at a cost of $450 plus GST.
Ms Kingham said she only recognised one of the areas shown in the photographs. She said that area related to a baby gate that had been installed at the top of the stairs. She said she had repaired that area after removing the gate. She denied carrying out the other repairs shown in the photographs and said she was not aware of those areas.
During the discussion, [The property manager] accepted that some of the photographs in that group were difficult to interpret and said she was prepared to abandon part of the stairway claim where the damage could not be clearly established.
Accordingly, I focused on the areas I could identify from the photographs. Ensuite vanity door handle
[The property manager] said the vanity door in the ensuite had swelling and damage to the veneer due to water exposure. She said the door had to be repaired and repainted and claimed $180 plus GST.
Ms Kingham disputed liability. She said the vanity was old and made from a thin laminate material and that the deterioration was due to age and general wear and tear rather than misuse. Cleaning claims
[The property manager] relied on a cleaning invoice that included charges for cleaning windows and frames ($80 plus GST), removing mould and staining from two toilets ($60 plus GST), and cleaning built-up grime from a bathroom tap ($20 plus GST).
[The property manager] said the property was not returned in a reasonably clean condition. She referred to dirt on window sills, insects and dust around a triangular window, grime on taps, and dirt in the laundry window area.
Ms Kingham disputed that the property was unclean. She said the house was thoroughly cleaned before vacating with assistance from her partner and family members. She said she had always maintained the property well during the three-year tenancy and had never received complaints during inspections. She also suggested that some of the staining referred to by [The property manager] may simply reflect the age and condition of the fixtures. 3-in1 heater bulb
[The property manager] claimed $50 plus GST for the replacement of a bathroom heat lamp bulb.
Ms Kingham said she had attempted to replace the bulb during the tenancy but it did not fix the issue. She said she informed [The property manager], who indicated an electrician would attend. She said she left a new bulb at the property.
[The property manager] said the contractor later replaced the bulb and confirmed it worked, meaning an electrician was not required. Garage remote battery
[The property manager] claimed $30 plus GST for replacing a battery in the garage remote. She said the cost covered the contractor having to buy the battery, install it, test the remote, and report back.
Ms Kingham disputed the claim. She said the battery was a standard consumable AA battery and that the remotes were rarely used during the tenancy. Discussion
In considering the landlord’s claims, I observed during the hearing that the claims sought could broadly be grouped into two categories. The first category related to alleged damage or repair work following alterations made by the tenants, such as mounting fixtures and later attempting to reinstate the surfaces. The second category related to the general condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy, including cleaning and maintenance issues.
In relation to the repairs, I noted that there was no suggestion by the landlord that the tenants had deliberately or carelessly caused damage to the premises. Rather, the landlord’s concern was that the reinstatement work carried out by the tenants, particularly the patching and painting of walls and other surfaces, was not completed to a professional standard and therefore left visible patches or uneven finishes.
I commented that it appeared the tenants had made attempts to restore the affected areas themselves, including filling holes and applying paint that they believed matched the existing colour. From the discussion it was apparent that the tenants did not deny making those repairs but maintained that they had acted in good faith and had attempted to reinstate the areas as best they could.
Therefore, the landlord’s claims in this category were not based on allegations of intentional damage but rather on the view that the standard of the repairs carried out by the tenants was unsatisfactory and that professional work was required to restore the surfaces to an acceptable condition.
In relation to the cleaning and maintenance issues, I observed that the issue was essentially whether the tenants had returned the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. I noted that the landlord’s claims for cleaning appeared to arise from items such as mould or staining on toilet surfaces, dirt or grime on windows and frames, and residue on taps. I indicated that such claims typically require consideration of whether the condition complained of reflects ordinary wear and tear associated with the age of the property, or whether it demonstrates a failure by the tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean.
I also commented on several of the smaller maintenance issues, such as the replacement of the heater bulb and the garage remote battery. In respect of the heater bulb, I noted that the property was clearly not new and raised the question of whether replacing the heater bulb effectively resulted in the landlord receiving a new item in place of an older one, which could amount to an element of betterment. In relation to the garage remote battery, I observed that such an issue can be difficult to assess because it is rarely known what the battery level was at the commencement and at the end of the tenancy. There is no dispute that one of the remotes has no battery at all.
Overall, my view is that the landlord’s claims largely turned on whether the tenants had restored the premises to a reasonable standard at the end of the tenancy and whether the landlord has satisfied me that the tenants are responsible for the costs, whether the costs claimed were properly attributable to the tenants rather than to ordinary wear and tear or the age and condition of the property.

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. Cleaning cost
I have reviewed the photos submitted. My view is that the tenants did do their best to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy when they vacated the premises. However, for tenants to cover every corner is probably unrealistic. For instance, long-term built-up dirt and grime from window glass and window frames, and built-up grime in the bathroom tap.
My view is that the tenants are responsible for the cleaning cost for these two areas below: a. Removal of long-term built-up dirt and grime from window glass and window frames; and b. Cleaning the bathroom tap and removing built-up grime.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants are responsible for the removal of mould and staining from the toilet surfaces. In my view, the house is not new, and the toilets are also not new. They are aged. I can see clear stains where the toilet seat leans on the toilet water tank. However, it is not clear whether these marks are mould or stains resulting from the age of the toilets. Accordingly, the tenants are not responsible for this cost. This claim is dismissed. 3-in1 heater bulb
It is undisputed that the bathroom heat lamp bulb was replaced. The replacement cost was $50 plus GST.
The photograph shows that the heat lamp was not new. The colour of the heat lamp set was yellowish, indicating that it had been regularly used in the shower room.
The tenancy lasted just over three years. In my view, the tenants are responsible for one-third of the cost, being $19.17 inclusive of GST. I have taken depreciation into account in determining that the tenants are responsible for one-third of the cost inclusive of GST. Garage remote battery
The tenants are responsible for replacing the batteries if they had reached the end of their life. In this case, one of the batteries was missing from the remote. Whether the tenants used the remote frequently or rarely is not relevant. In my view, the tenants are responsible for the cost of a new battery.
However, the landlord claims $30 plus GST for the battery on the basis that the cost includes the contractor purchasing the battery, installing it, testing the remote, and reporting back.
Even if I accept that the contractor required time to purchase the battery, install it, test the remote, and report back to the landlord, I have considerable difficulty accepting that $30 plus GST is reasonable.
Accordingly, I consider that $17.25 inclusive of GST (50% of the cost claimed) is a more reasonable and acceptable amount for the battery replacement.

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. Kitchen cabinet hook removal b. Wall repair and full wall painting in the living room c. Wardrobe door repair and painting d. Upstairs stairwell wall repair and full wall painting e. Ensuite vanity door handle.
Except for the “ensuite vanity door handle,” which the tenants say is fair wear and tear, the tenants accept that the remaining items of damage in the above list occurred during the tenancy and are more than fair wear and tear.
I have viewed the photograph of the ensuite vanity door handle. In my view, given the age of the house and the fact that the vanity door handle is located in the shower room, I am not satisfied that the tenants either carelessly or intentionally damaged it. Accordingly, the landlord has not proved this claim on the balance of probabilities. This claim is dismissed.
The dispute regarding the remaining items of damage is more about the quality of the remedial work carried out than how or when the damage occurred.
I consider the tenants are liable for 30% of the cost of bringing the work up to the required standard, except for the kitchen cabinet hook removal, for which they accept liability for the full amount.
I consider that 30% of the cost claimed by the landlord is appropriate because I do not know whether the contractor relied on any of the work already carried out by the tenants. In addition, the invoice indicates that repainting was carried out for the entire areas. For example, the contractor repainted the full living room wall and carried out full wall painting for the upstairs stairwell.
I also observed that the landlord carried out additional work to bring the property to a more presentable condition for the next tenant. Given that the tenancy lasted just over three years, it is understandable that some work was undertaken to improve the overall presentation of the property.
In reaching a 30% allocation of liability, 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. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398077 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398077 — 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