Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5403212 — Property damage at 8b Sam Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022
Published 30 March 2026 · Application 5403212
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $974.55
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $974.55
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $50.00 | Cleaning | |
| Water rates: 09 October 2024 - 26 November 2025 | $674.55 | Water rates: 09 October 2024 - 26 November 2025 | |
| Repairs: wooden floor | $250.00 | Repairs: wooden floor | |
| Net award | $974.55 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $974.55 |
Claims and awards for application 5403212 — net $974.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $50.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Water rates: 09 October 2024 - 26 November 2025
- Amount
- $674.55
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates: 09 October 2024 - 26 November 2025
Repairs: wooden floor
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: wooden floor
Net award
Landlord $974.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $974.55
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Ramya Swetha Kothapalli to pay TBT Property Management Limited as Agent for Nancy Sharma & Costubh Goel $974.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $974.55 (6551157-017) to TBT Property Management Limited as Agent for Nancy Sharma & Costubh Goel immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,385.45 (6551157-017) to Ramya Swetha Kothapalli immediately.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Mr Chhabra and Ms Sharma appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both appeared by video.
- The tenancy commenced on 09 October 2024 and ended on 25 November 2025. On 01 December 2025, the tenant filed a claim seeking refund of the bond. On 08 January 2026, the landlord filed a counterclaim for water rates and compensation for cleaning and damage.
- The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Owes water rates of $674.55. ii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy; and iii. Is responsible for damage to: a. Walls in the lounge and the top of door frames. b. The wooden floor in the lounge.
- The landlord has produced invoices for cleaning and replacing the silicone totalling $529.00 and $138.00 and repairing the damage to walls for $575.00. The landlord is seeking a contribution of $500.00 toward the insurance excess of $750.00 for the damage to the wooden floor.
- The tenant denies all of the landlord’s claims and seek refund of their bond. Water rates
- The property is a two-bedroom unit with a bathroom and an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge. It was built in 2015 and is one of two joined units. There is a single water and wastewater connection. Each unit has its own consumption meter. When quarterly invoices are received, readings from each meter are obtained. The occupants of both units are then sent detail of the units used and the charges.
- The landlord has produced a photograph of the tenant’s meter showing the reading on 09 October 2024 and 26 November 2025. This shows that the tenant has used a total of 210 units over four billing cycles. The tenant made one payment of $233.08 on 08 March 2025.
- The tenant stated that they had not received any breakdown of the charges. While they paid one invoice, they were reluctant to pay the others due to concerns about accuracy.
- The landlord stated that the tenant had provided meter readings and that a property management software program recorded when the emails containing details of the usage were opened. Law
- Under section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water and wastewater charges (where supply is exclusively attributable to the tenants use and is metered). Analysis and decision
- After considering the evidence I am satisfied that the water and wastewater charges claimed are based on the tenant’s consumption and exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the information was sent to the tenant during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the calculations are correct. The amount claimed is awarded. Cleaning
- The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports containing photographs. The landlord has also provided separate up close photographs showing: an article of clothing left outside , a footprint on the kitchen vinyl flooring , grease under the rangehood , residue under the gas hob elements, dust on an area of skirting board in the main living room , items left in the bathroom vanity and hanging on the back of the bathroom door , hair in the shower plughole , and dark patch on the carpet in one of the bedrooms.
- The tenant denied the claim stating that the property was returned in a reasonably clean condition. They stated that they had hired movers. They challenged the date of the pre tenancy photographs. They stated that the gas hob was returned in the same condition it had been at the commencement of the tenancy, noting that there were no photographs showing under the gas hob elements on which to make a comparison.
- The landlord stated that the pre tenancy photographs were taken on 09 October 2024 by a former property manager.
- The landlord stated that they had reduced the amount initially claimed to $345.00 for cleaning (which also included compensation for damage)
- The landlord is also claiming compensation for replacing silicone in the shower due to mould discolouration which could not be cleaned off. The landlord has provided a photograph of the silicone at the commencement of the tenancy. They state that the shower had recently been replaced and the silicone was new. This is not damage as it has not affected the structural integrity of the sealant and is cosmetic. The landlord states they have been told by a contractor that the sealant can be maintained in an unblemished state if it is regularly cleaned.
- The tenant denies that they had failed to return the shower in a reasonably clean condition and state that the decolourisation is fair wear and tear. Law
- 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) of the Act.
- The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Analysis and decision
- I accept the date of the pre tenancy photographs. However, the only areas where a proper before and after comparison can be made under the range hood and the kitchen floor. The grease beneath the rangehood was likely an area missed by the tenant, the footprint likely left by a mover. I accept the tenant’s evidence that there are no photographs showing beneath the gas hob elements at the commencement of the tenancy. I cannot rule out that prior to the tenancy these had not been removed for cleaning. The carpet in the bedrooms had some staining at the commencement of the tenancy. I cannot be satisfied that the stain shown in the end of tenancy inspection report was not present at the commencement.
- I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave under the rangehood and a portion of the kitchen floor reasonably clean. Although the amount claimed has been discounted, the invoice has not been itemised. In my view reasonable compensation for cleaning these areas is $50.00.
- Regarding the silicone sealant. Photographs of other areas of tiling in the bathroom show the grouting similarly discoloured. In the Tribunal’s experience this can occur naturally through fair wear and tear and does not necessarily mean that the area has not been cleaned adequately during the tenancy or returned reasonably clean. There is also no expert evidence before the Tribunal that silicone sealant is immune from discolouration through fair wear and tear. Showers are high use areas. Having considered the evidence and heard from the parties, I am not satisfied that the tenant has failed to meet their obligation and the claim concerning the silicone is dismissed. Damage Wooden floor
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for two deep scratches to the polished wooden floor in the lounge. The landlord stated that the damage could not be repaired, and that the entire floor required replacing. No quote or invoice has been produced. The landlord stated that they were awaiting the Tribunal’s decision before making an insurance claim and are seeking a contribution toward the $750.00 excess of $500.00.
- The tenant is unable to provide an explanation for the damage. They stated that they had hired movers, suggesting that it may have occurred in the process of moving out. The tenant questioned whether the damage could not be repaired, and was of the view that the amount claimed was excessive. Walls and doors
- The landlord has produced up close photographs showing a paint chip and a gouge on two walls in the lounge and areas or minor paint chipping on the tops of two internal doors. The landlord stated that the damage to the tops of the doors was consistent with using over door hangers.
- The tenant denies that they are responsible for the damage to the walls in the lounge and state that the pre tenancy photographs are not sufficient to make a proper comparison. The tenant was unaware of the damage to the top of the doors. 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.
- Section 41(1) of the Act states that a tenant is responsible for the actions or omissions of anyone they allow onto the premises (except the landlord or someone acting for the landlord). If that person does something that would breach the tenancy agreement if the tenant had done it, the tenant can be held liable for it.
- 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.
- 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 lifespan. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the scratches to the wooden floor occurred during the tenancy and are more than fair wear and tear. They likely happened during moving, and the tenant is responsible for damage caused by the movers. I am also satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused carelessly. Compensation must be proportionate. There is no evidence from a suitably qualified person that the floor cannot be repaired, and or requires full replacement, as opposed to sanding and re staining. There is no basis on which to award the insurance excess. I award the landlord $250.00.
- I accept the tenant’s submission that the pre-tenancy photographs are insufficient to make a proper before-and-after comparison to establish that the damage to the lounge walls, and the paint damage on the tops of the doors, occurred during the tenancy and was not present at the start. A close inspection of the pre- tenancy photographs shows that the property already had some pre-existing damage consistent with fair wear and tear. Tenant’s other matters
- In their application, the tenant referred to having no internet and being without electricity and water at the commencement of the tenancy. It was unclear whether these were raised as formal claims. Under the provisions of the Act, while the landlord may not unreasonably withhold permission for the tenant to install a fibre connection, the landlord is not obliged to provide one themselves, although they may choose to include any fibre box as a chattel. This does not apply in this case. It appears there was a delay in the tenant establishing an internet connection; however, this was not the responsibility of the landlord nor is there any evidence that the landlord has withheld consent. Regarding the water, it appears that a mains control had been turned off at the end of the prior tenancy, which was remedied once discovered. A breaker switch in the meter box also tripped at the commencement of the tenancy and had to be reset. I am not satisfied that these matters amount to a breach. Costs
- Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
- As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression
- Both parties seek 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.
- In this case neither party has been sufficiently successful, and no orders for suppression are made.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102, s25, s37, s38, s39, s40(1), s40(2), s41(1), s49B, s49B(3), s6, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403212?
The tribunal order states: Ramya Swetha Kothapalli to pay TBT Property Management Limited as Agent
How much money was awarded in case 5403212?
Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Floor: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $674.55 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403212?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403212?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13353039-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.