What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412523 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 5412523?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $725.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $325.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Glass Cabinet: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Bathroom Window By Consent: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Glass By Consent: $350.00 awarded to landlord; X 5 Blinds By Consent: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains in lou…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $650.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412523?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13646600-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412523 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 5412523?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $725.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $325.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Glass Cabinet: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Bathroom Window By Consent: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Glass By Consent: $350.00 awarded to landlord; X 5 Blinds By Consent: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains in lou…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $650.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412523?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13646600-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412523 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412523 — net $8,140.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 November 2025 by consent	$325.71	The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn at the hearing.
Water rates: by consent	$650.09	Water rates: by consent
Lock/key replacement: x 4 by consent	$180.00	Lock/key replacement: x 4 by consent
Repairs: x 5 Blinds by consent	$750.00	Repairs: x 5 Blinds by consent
Replace furnishings: Curtains in lounge by consent	$1,200.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains in lounge by consent
Pest control: By consent	$150.00	Pest control: By consent
Repairs: Shower glass by consent	$350.00	Repairs: Shower glass by consent
Repairs: Painting bathroom window by consent	$200.00	Repairs: Painting bathroom window by consent
Repairs: Glass repair in rumpus roomby consent	$250.00	Repairs: Glass repair in rumpus roomby consent
Repairs: External wall deck repair by consent	$750.00	Repairs: External wall deck repair by consent
Lawns and Garden work: And rubbish removal by consent	$750.00	Lawns and Garden work: And rubbish removal by consent
Carpet Cleaning	$130.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$725.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Plumbing	$450.00	Repairs: Plumbing
Repairs: Kitchen glass cabinet	$180.00	Repairs: Kitchen glass cabinet
Loss of rent	$1,100.00	Loss of rent
Net award	$8,140.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,140.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Mele Tupou Moala and Naeata Moala must pay [The landlord/s] $8,140.80 immediately, being rent arrears to 1 November 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenants attended by telephone and the Landlord attended in person. The Tenants requested to adjourn the hearing on the morning of the hearing because they had insufficient time to prepare their case despite filing their claim on 11 December 2025, some 3 months prior. The Tribunal called the Tenants at the start of the hearing and allowed them to participate by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn at the hearing.
The Tenants have applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing the parties agreed for the Tenants to pay the Landlords claims in respect of the following: a) Rent arrears b) Water rates arrears c) Lock replacement x 4 d) Repair to blinds x 5 e) Replace curtains in lounge f) Pest control g) Repair shower glass h) Paint bathroom window i) Glass repair in rumpus room j) Repair external wall deck k) Lawns and rubbish removal
The Landlord submitted the house was approximately 30-50 years old and he had purchased the house on 29 October 2021.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Landlord was granted leave to file the exit inspection report by 27 April 2026, and the Tenant was granted leave to respond solely to that exit inspection report by the same date.
The Tenant did not comply with those directions and instead filed evidence addressing the entirety of the Landlord’s claims. That evidence should have been filed prior to or at the hearing. Allowing it to be considered after the hearing would be procedurally unfair to the Landlord, who would then require an opportunity to respond and an adjournment to a further hearing. The Tribunal’s directions were clear: the Tenant’s further submissions were limited to responding to the exit inspection report only. The Tenants were not granted additional time to prepare evidence that should already have been before the Tribunal. I therefore have not considered any of the material in the Tenants that do not respond to the exit inspection report. I also have not considered the Landlord’s subsequent response to that material.

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. Carpet cleaning
The Landlord claimed $650.00 for carpet cleaning submitting the carpet was extensively stained throughout the bedrooms and lounge. Photographs taken at the start of the tenancy already showed multiple stains, including brown and red marks and large stained areas in the dining room. The ingoing inspection report also recorded numerous existing stains in every room, including “large stains”, “many stains”, and “faint stains” throughout the property. An insurance report from McLarens dated 29 December 2025 confirmed staining existed in all rooms prior to the tenancy and excluded the claim on that basis. The outgoing inspection described the carpet as “very dirty and damaged at many spots” and in “extremely poor condition”. The Landlord also provided evidence that the carpet had been professionally cleaned at the commencement of the tenancy by JAE Carpet Cleaning. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cleaning.
The Tenant disputed the claim, stating the carpet had previously been affected by flooding and that most stains pre-dated the tenancy. The Tenant accepted responsibility for a small number of stains, including one in her parent’s room and one in her sister’s room.
In considering the evidence, I find the carpet contained extensive pre- existing staining at the start of the tenancy. The difficulty with the Landlord’s evidence is that neither the ingoing nor outgoing inspection reports clearly distinguished between pre-existing stains and any new stains caused during the tenancy. The insurance report also confirmed the presence of longstanding staining throughout the property. The Tenant accepted responsibility for some additional stains. I find it appropriate to award 20% of the cleaning claim to damage caused by the Tenant, which equates to $130.00. The balance of the claim is dismissed due to the substantial pre- existing condition issues.
The amounts awarded are proved. Cleaning
The Landlord claimed $1,450.00 for cleaning the property, including the oven and rangehood. The Landlord said he encouraged the Tenant at the end of the tenancy to undertake further cleaning to avoid the cost of professional cleaners. The exit inspection report described the property as “VERY DIRTY” and noted the Tenant had been asked to clean but left without doing so. The Landlord provided photographs showing dirty window sills, cupboards, walls, surfaces, curtains, and lino. However, the photographs were unlabelled, making it difficult to identify which room was which or whether some photographs showed the same area from different angles. No photographs of the dirty oven or rangehood were provided. The Landlord also relied on a 14-day notice dated 8 July 2025 requiring the Tenant to clean window sills, the rangehood, and dispose of rubbish.
The Tenant said the property had been cleaned at the end of the tenancy, although no supporting evidence was produced. The Tenant also claimed some of the photographs relied upon by the Landlord were taken during the cleaning process rather than after the tenancy had ended.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied some additional cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy. However, the extent of the work required is unclear because the Landlord’s photographs were not labelled or dated. While the photographs demonstrate some areas required attention, I cannot determine with confidence the overall condition of the property on the vacate date or whether some photographs were taken before cleaning was completed. In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable to allow 50% of the claim, being $725.00.
The amounts awarded are proved. Missing smoke alarms
The Landlord claimed compensation for three missing smoke alarms located in the hallway and lounge. The exit inspection report recorded that the alarms were not mounted and required remounting with new batteries.
The Tenant disputed the claim and said no smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, the ingoing inspection report did not clearly record the presence of smoke alarms in the hallway or lounge at the start of the tenancy. The exit inspection report referred only to alarms not being mounted, rather than being missing entirely. In the absence of clear evidence establishing the number and condition of the alarms at the start of the tenancy, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proven that smoke alarms were removed or lost during the tenancy.
The claim is dismissed.

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: Carpet damage
The Landlord claimed $2,000.00 for two insurance excesses relating to carpet damage that could not be fixed by cleaning. The Landlord said chewing gum, cigarette burns, stains, and holes were found at the end of the tenancy, and the insurer accepted a claim to replace the lounge carpet. A letter from Carpet Direct NZ Ltd dated 22 January 2026 stated the carpet contained multiple burns, holes, and chewing gum, and required replacement. The exit inspection described the carpet as being in extremely poor condition, but did not specify the exact damage in the lounge. The photographs provided were unlabelled, which made it unclear as to which photographs were showing the lounge carpet. The ingoing inspection report also recorded significant pre-existing fading and wear throughout the property. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant said she arranged professional carpet cleaning on 29 October 2026 and disputed the need for replacement. She also said the two major stains relied on by the Landlord were present at the start of the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proven their claim. The photographs relied upon were unlabelled and did not clearly identify the alleged damage to the lounge carpet. While the contractor noted chewing gum, burns, and holes, the report did not specify where in the property that damage was located. The ingoing inspection report recorded extensive fading and deterioration throughout the house, suggesting the carpet was already significantly worn at the commencement of the tenancy. More persuasive evidence would have been in the form of clearly dated photographs identifying the specific damage in the lounge carpet. Instead, the evidence consisted of general photographs of stains and marks from unidentified areas of the property. In those circumstances, I am unable to determine why replacement of the lounge carpet was necessary or whether the Tenant was responsible.
The claim is dismissed. Kitchen and dining room blinds
The Landlord claimed $750.00 for cleaning the kitchen and dining room blinds, alleging they were left heavily marked with insects and dirt at the end of the tenancy. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant disputed the claim and said the blinds had been cleaned at the end of the tenancy using Exit Mould and a broom.
In considering the evidence, I note the ingoing inspection report recorded pre-existing staining and mould marks on the dining room curtains. Given the evidence of pre-existing condition issues, I am not satisfied the Landlord has established the blinds were left in a materially worse condition requiring professional cleaning beyond ordinary wear and tear. There were also no photographs to show the dirt on the blinds.
The claim is dismissed. Plumbing repairs
The Landlord claimed $450.00 for plumbing repairs to a towel rail that had fallen off the bathroom wall. The Landlord said the bathroom had been renovated in 2020 and maintained the towel rail would not have been damaged before the tenancy. The final inspection recorded the towel rail as damaged, and the Landlord said no report of damage had been received from the Tenants during the tenancy. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant said the towel rail repeatedly came loose, so they removed it and placed it on the floor to avoid further issues. The Tenant claimed the Landlord had been informed during an inspection in 2022. The Tenant accepted liability for damaging the shower glass and painting the bathroom window. The ingoing inspection report made no reference to any issue with the towel rail.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is liable for the damage to the towel rail. If the rail became loose or defective during the tenancy, the Tenant was required to notify the Landlord promptly. Instead, the rail was removed and left on the floor without proper notice being given. I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the Tenant caused or contributed to the damage and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further deterioration.
The amounts awarded are proved. Kitchen cupboards
The Landlord also claimed for repairs to the glass panels in the kitchen cupboards, alleging the Tenant intentionally removed the glass during the tenancy. The Tenant initially denied removing the glass, but later said it was taken out because it had become loose and they were concerned it would fall and smash. An invoice was provided and photograph of the intact kitchen cupboards.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant intentionally removed the glass panels and failed to notify the Landlord of the issue. Even if the glass had become loose, the appropriate course was to report the defect rather than remove the panels without consent. The Landlord provided a repair quote, and I am satisfied the Tenant is liable for the resulting repair costs.
The amounts awarded are proved. Wall repairs
The Landlord claimed $4000.00 for the repair and painting of ten walls around the property due to there being holes, gouges, torn wallpaper, food stains and damage caused by door handles hitting the walls. The ingoing inspection report already recorded extensive pre-existing damage, including scuffs, holes, peeling wallpaper, flaking paint and marks in most rooms. The exit inspection noted additional holes, writing on walls, torn wallpaper and photographs showed peeling wallpaper, gouges, holes and paint damage.
The insurance report confirmed the damage was excluded from the claim because there was damage to the wallpaper in all the rooms prior to the tenants moving in. it was note however that the impact damage to the wall behind the door to bedroom three, the insurance would repair the hole but a minimum charge for the wallpaper replacement. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant did not agree to repainting the walls. She stated that she cleaned the walls.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not proven the Tenant caused damage beyond the pre-existing condition of the property. The ingoing report documented substantial wear and deterioration of the house at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord did not provide sufficiently clear or comparable evidence showing the same wall areas at the start of the tenancy and the photographs were not labelled or date stamped. As a result, I am unable to determine the damage that was caused by the Tenant. The property was already in poor condition at the start of the tenancy an di am not prepared to award the Landlord compensation for repainting or wallpaper repairs in those circumstances.
The claim is dismissed. Loss of rent
The Landlord also claimed four weeks’ rent for loss of rental income while repairs were completed to prepare the property for reletting. The Landlord said repairs ultimately continued until the end of January 2026, resulting in approximately three months of lost rent.
The Tenant disputed this claim.
In considering the evidence, I accept that some repair work was required after the tenancy ended, and the Tenant acknowledged responsibility for some of this. I do not accept however that the Tenant was responsible for the wall repairs or carpet replacement, which would have contributed significantly to the delay in reletting the property. The wall and carpet were already damaged at the start of the tenancy. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to award one week rent for the time required to repair the property.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants claims
The Tenant claimed the property breached Healthy Homes standards because flooding regularly occurred downstairs during heavy rain. The Tenant said water would rise to ankle height and that the issue was reported to the Landlord on multiple occasions over four years, but no repairs were carried out. The Tenant alleged the Landlord’s agent said the Landlord could not afford to fix the stairs.
The Landlord claimed he was not informed of the house being flooded. He then submitted however that a Plumber that attended the property had advised him that the pipe had burst because it had been cut by someone.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim and the onus lies on the Tenant to prove their claim. There were no photographs, independent plumbing reports, or correspondence to support that the flooding occurred, the Tenants notified the Landlord or that the issue arose from the Landlord failing to comply with Healthy Home Standards. If it had flooded as frequently as the Tenant had said, there was no evidence supporting this. Because there is not enough supporting evidence, the claim is dismissed.
The Tenant claimed $5000.00 because the Landlord verbally abused the Tenants and attended the property without notice. The Tenant said the Landlord attended on Christmas Day 2024 and again on 28 December 2024. He called the Tenants “lazy” and “filthy animals”. He also entered the house while the family were celebrating Christmas. A family member who previously lived at the property, gave evidence supporting the Tenants account who said the Landlord remained inside the property for approximately 20 minutes. The witness also described the pre-existing damage to the carpet and walls. They confirmed that the Tenants were told they had to patch the plumbing leak themselves.
The Landlord denied entering the property unlawfully or verbally abusing the Tenants. He accepted attending the property on 28 December 2024, but said he remained in the common outdoor area after receiving complaints from neighbours about the condition of the garden and fence. He said the only other attendance was for a plumbing issue.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied the Tenant has established that the Landlord entered the property unlawfully. While I accept the Landlord attended the property, the evidence does not establish on the balance of probabilities that he entered the house without consent or notice. There is nothing in writing to support this and it is hard to believe a Landlord would attend a Tenants property on Christmas day. A landlord is not required to give notice to attend common outdoor areas.
I also have insufficient evidence to find the Landlord was verbally abusive towards the Tenants. There was no corroborating evidence and no witnesses to the Landlords abuse or evidence of how the Tenant suffered from this.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their claim, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee. As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted and the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412523 — net $8,140.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 November 2025 by consent	$325.71	The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn at the hearing.
Water rates: by consent	$650.09	Water rates: by consent
Lock/key replacement: x 4 by consent	$180.00	Lock/key replacement: x 4 by consent
Repairs: x 5 Blinds by consent	$750.00	Repairs: x 5 Blinds by consent
Replace furnishings: Curtains in lounge by consent	$1,200.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains in lounge by consent
Pest control: By consent	$150.00	Pest control: By consent
Repairs: Shower glass by consent	$350.00	Repairs: Shower glass by consent
Repairs: Painting bathroom window by consent	$200.00	Repairs: Painting bathroom window by consent
Repairs: Glass repair in rumpus roomby consent	$250.00	Repairs: Glass repair in rumpus roomby consent
Repairs: External wall deck repair by consent	$750.00	Repairs: External wall deck repair by consent
Lawns and Garden work: And rubbish removal by consent	$750.00	Lawns and Garden work: And rubbish removal by consent
Carpet Cleaning	$130.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$725.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Plumbing	$450.00	Repairs: Plumbing
Repairs: Kitchen glass cabinet	$180.00	Repairs: Kitchen glass cabinet
Loss of rent	$1,100.00	Loss of rent
Net award	$8,140.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,140.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Mele Tupou Moala and Naeata Moala must pay [The landlord/s] $8,140.80 immediately, being rent arrears to 1 November 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenants attended by telephone and the Landlord attended in person. The Tenants requested to adjourn the hearing on the morning of the hearing because they had insufficient time to prepare their case despite filing their claim on 11 December 2025, some 3 months prior. The Tribunal called the Tenants at the start of the hearing and allowed them to participate by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn at the hearing.
The Tenants have applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing the parties agreed for the Tenants to pay the Landlords claims in respect of the following: a) Rent arrears b) Water rates arrears c) Lock replacement x 4 d) Repair to blinds x 5 e) Replace curtains in lounge f) Pest control g) Repair shower glass h) Paint bathroom window i) Glass repair in rumpus room j) Repair external wall deck k) Lawns and rubbish removal
The Landlord submitted the house was approximately 30-50 years old and he had purchased the house on 29 October 2021.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Landlord was granted leave to file the exit inspection report by 27 April 2026, and the Tenant was granted leave to respond solely to that exit inspection report by the same date.
The Tenant did not comply with those directions and instead filed evidence addressing the entirety of the Landlord’s claims. That evidence should have been filed prior to or at the hearing. Allowing it to be considered after the hearing would be procedurally unfair to the Landlord, who would then require an opportunity to respond and an adjournment to a further hearing. The Tribunal’s directions were clear: the Tenant’s further submissions were limited to responding to the exit inspection report only. The Tenants were not granted additional time to prepare evidence that should already have been before the Tribunal. I therefore have not considered any of the material in the Tenants that do not respond to the exit inspection report. I also have not considered the Landlord’s subsequent response to that material.

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. Carpet cleaning
The Landlord claimed $650.00 for carpet cleaning submitting the carpet was extensively stained throughout the bedrooms and lounge. Photographs taken at the start of the tenancy already showed multiple stains, including brown and red marks and large stained areas in the dining room. The ingoing inspection report also recorded numerous existing stains in every room, including “large stains”, “many stains”, and “faint stains” throughout the property. An insurance report from McLarens dated 29 December 2025 confirmed staining existed in all rooms prior to the tenancy and excluded the claim on that basis. The outgoing inspection described the carpet as “very dirty and damaged at many spots” and in “extremely poor condition”. The Landlord also provided evidence that the carpet had been professionally cleaned at the commencement of the tenancy by JAE Carpet Cleaning. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cleaning.
The Tenant disputed the claim, stating the carpet had previously been affected by flooding and that most stains pre-dated the tenancy. The Tenant accepted responsibility for a small number of stains, including one in her parent’s room and one in her sister’s room.
In considering the evidence, I find the carpet contained extensive pre- existing staining at the start of the tenancy. The difficulty with the Landlord’s evidence is that neither the ingoing nor outgoing inspection reports clearly distinguished between pre-existing stains and any new stains caused during the tenancy. The insurance report also confirmed the presence of longstanding staining throughout the property. The Tenant accepted responsibility for some additional stains. I find it appropriate to award 20% of the cleaning claim to damage caused by the Tenant, which equates to $130.00. The balance of the claim is dismissed due to the substantial pre- existing condition issues.
The amounts awarded are proved. Cleaning
The Landlord claimed $1,450.00 for cleaning the property, including the oven and rangehood. The Landlord said he encouraged the Tenant at the end of the tenancy to undertake further cleaning to avoid the cost of professional cleaners. The exit inspection report described the property as “VERY DIRTY” and noted the Tenant had been asked to clean but left without doing so. The Landlord provided photographs showing dirty window sills, cupboards, walls, surfaces, curtains, and lino. However, the photographs were unlabelled, making it difficult to identify which room was which or whether some photographs showed the same area from different angles. No photographs of the dirty oven or rangehood were provided. The Landlord also relied on a 14-day notice dated 8 July 2025 requiring the Tenant to clean window sills, the rangehood, and dispose of rubbish.
The Tenant said the property had been cleaned at the end of the tenancy, although no supporting evidence was produced. The Tenant also claimed some of the photographs relied upon by the Landlord were taken during the cleaning process rather than after the tenancy had ended.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied some additional cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy. However, the extent of the work required is unclear because the Landlord’s photographs were not labelled or dated. While the photographs demonstrate some areas required attention, I cannot determine with confidence the overall condition of the property on the vacate date or whether some photographs were taken before cleaning was completed. In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable to allow 50% of the claim, being $725.00.
The amounts awarded are proved. Missing smoke alarms
The Landlord claimed compensation for three missing smoke alarms located in the hallway and lounge. The exit inspection report recorded that the alarms were not mounted and required remounting with new batteries.
The Tenant disputed the claim and said no smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, the ingoing inspection report did not clearly record the presence of smoke alarms in the hallway or lounge at the start of the tenancy. The exit inspection report referred only to alarms not being mounted, rather than being missing entirely. In the absence of clear evidence establishing the number and condition of the alarms at the start of the tenancy, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proven that smoke alarms were removed or lost during the tenancy.
The claim is dismissed.

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: Carpet damage
The Landlord claimed $2,000.00 for two insurance excesses relating to carpet damage that could not be fixed by cleaning. The Landlord said chewing gum, cigarette burns, stains, and holes were found at the end of the tenancy, and the insurer accepted a claim to replace the lounge carpet. A letter from Carpet Direct NZ Ltd dated 22 January 2026 stated the carpet contained multiple burns, holes, and chewing gum, and required replacement. The exit inspection described the carpet as being in extremely poor condition, but did not specify the exact damage in the lounge. The photographs provided were unlabelled, which made it unclear as to which photographs were showing the lounge carpet. The ingoing inspection report also recorded significant pre-existing fading and wear throughout the property. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant said she arranged professional carpet cleaning on 29 October 2026 and disputed the need for replacement. She also said the two major stains relied on by the Landlord were present at the start of the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proven their claim. The photographs relied upon were unlabelled and did not clearly identify the alleged damage to the lounge carpet. While the contractor noted chewing gum, burns, and holes, the report did not specify where in the property that damage was located. The ingoing inspection report recorded extensive fading and deterioration throughout the house, suggesting the carpet was already significantly worn at the commencement of the tenancy. More persuasive evidence would have been in the form of clearly dated photographs identifying the specific damage in the lounge carpet. Instead, the evidence consisted of general photographs of stains and marks from unidentified areas of the property. In those circumstances, I am unable to determine why replacement of the lounge carpet was necessary or whether the Tenant was responsible.
The claim is dismissed. Kitchen and dining room blinds
The Landlord claimed $750.00 for cleaning the kitchen and dining room blinds, alleging they were left heavily marked with insects and dirt at the end of the tenancy. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant disputed the claim and said the blinds had been cleaned at the end of the tenancy using Exit Mould and a broom.
In considering the evidence, I note the ingoing inspection report recorded pre-existing staining and mould marks on the dining room curtains. Given the evidence of pre-existing condition issues, I am not satisfied the Landlord has established the blinds were left in a materially worse condition requiring professional cleaning beyond ordinary wear and tear. There were also no photographs to show the dirt on the blinds.
The claim is dismissed. Plumbing repairs
The Landlord claimed $450.00 for plumbing repairs to a towel rail that had fallen off the bathroom wall. The Landlord said the bathroom had been renovated in 2020 and maintained the towel rail would not have been damaged before the tenancy. The final inspection recorded the towel rail as damaged, and the Landlord said no report of damage had been received from the Tenants during the tenancy. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant said the towel rail repeatedly came loose, so they removed it and placed it on the floor to avoid further issues. The Tenant claimed the Landlord had been informed during an inspection in 2022. The Tenant accepted liability for damaging the shower glass and painting the bathroom window. The ingoing inspection report made no reference to any issue with the towel rail.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is liable for the damage to the towel rail. If the rail became loose or defective during the tenancy, the Tenant was required to notify the Landlord promptly. Instead, the rail was removed and left on the floor without proper notice being given. I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the Tenant caused or contributed to the damage and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further deterioration.
The amounts awarded are proved. Kitchen cupboards
The Landlord also claimed for repairs to the glass panels in the kitchen cupboards, alleging the Tenant intentionally removed the glass during the tenancy. The Tenant initially denied removing the glass, but later said it was taken out because it had become loose and they were concerned it would fall and smash. An invoice was provided and photograph of the intact kitchen cupboards.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant intentionally removed the glass panels and failed to notify the Landlord of the issue. Even if the glass had become loose, the appropriate course was to report the defect rather than remove the panels without consent. The Landlord provided a repair quote, and I am satisfied the Tenant is liable for the resulting repair costs.
The amounts awarded are proved. Wall repairs
The Landlord claimed $4000.00 for the repair and painting of ten walls around the property due to there being holes, gouges, torn wallpaper, food stains and damage caused by door handles hitting the walls. The ingoing inspection report already recorded extensive pre-existing damage, including scuffs, holes, peeling wallpaper, flaking paint and marks in most rooms. The exit inspection noted additional holes, writing on walls, torn wallpaper and photographs showed peeling wallpaper, gouges, holes and paint damage.
The insurance report confirmed the damage was excluded from the claim because there was damage to the wallpaper in all the rooms prior to the tenants moving in. it was note however that the impact damage to the wall behind the door to bedroom three, the insurance would repair the hole but a minimum charge for the wallpaper replacement. An invoice was provided to substantiate the claim.
The Tenant did not agree to repainting the walls. She stated that she cleaned the walls.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not proven the Tenant caused damage beyond the pre-existing condition of the property. The ingoing report documented substantial wear and deterioration of the house at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord did not provide sufficiently clear or comparable evidence showing the same wall areas at the start of the tenancy and the photographs were not labelled or date stamped. As a result, I am unable to determine the damage that was caused by the Tenant. The property was already in poor condition at the start of the tenancy an di am not prepared to award the Landlord compensation for repainting or wallpaper repairs in those circumstances.
The claim is dismissed. Loss of rent
The Landlord also claimed four weeks’ rent for loss of rental income while repairs were completed to prepare the property for reletting. The Landlord said repairs ultimately continued until the end of January 2026, resulting in approximately three months of lost rent.
The Tenant disputed this claim.
In considering the evidence, I accept that some repair work was required after the tenancy ended, and the Tenant acknowledged responsibility for some of this. I do not accept however that the Tenant was responsible for the wall repairs or carpet replacement, which would have contributed significantly to the delay in reletting the property. The wall and carpet were already damaged at the start of the tenancy. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to award one week rent for the time required to repair the property.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants claims
The Tenant claimed the property breached Healthy Homes standards because flooding regularly occurred downstairs during heavy rain. The Tenant said water would rise to ankle height and that the issue was reported to the Landlord on multiple occasions over four years, but no repairs were carried out. The Tenant alleged the Landlord’s agent said the Landlord could not afford to fix the stairs.
The Landlord claimed he was not informed of the house being flooded. He then submitted however that a Plumber that attended the property had advised him that the pipe had burst because it had been cut by someone.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim and the onus lies on the Tenant to prove their claim. There were no photographs, independent plumbing reports, or correspondence to support that the flooding occurred, the Tenants notified the Landlord or that the issue arose from the Landlord failing to comply with Healthy Home Standards. If it had flooded as frequently as the Tenant had said, there was no evidence supporting this. Because there is not enough supporting evidence, the claim is dismissed.
The Tenant claimed $5000.00 because the Landlord verbally abused the Tenants and attended the property without notice. The Tenant said the Landlord attended on Christmas Day 2024 and again on 28 December 2024. He called the Tenants “lazy” and “filthy animals”. He also entered the house while the family were celebrating Christmas. A family member who previously lived at the property, gave evidence supporting the Tenants account who said the Landlord remained inside the property for approximately 20 minutes. The witness also described the pre-existing damage to the carpet and walls. They confirmed that the Tenants were told they had to patch the plumbing leak themselves.
The Landlord denied entering the property unlawfully or verbally abusing the Tenants. He accepted attending the property on 28 December 2024, but said he remained in the common outdoor area after receiving complaints from neighbours about the condition of the garden and fence. He said the only other attendance was for a plumbing issue.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied the Tenant has established that the Landlord entered the property unlawfully. While I accept the Landlord attended the property, the evidence does not establish on the balance of probabilities that he entered the house without consent or notice. There is nothing in writing to support this and it is hard to believe a Landlord would attend a Tenants property on Christmas day. A landlord is not required to give notice to attend common outdoor areas.
I also have insufficient evidence to find the Landlord was verbally abusive towards the Tenants. There was no corroborating evidence and no witnesses to the Landlords abuse or evidence of how the Tenant suffered from this.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their claim, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee. As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted and the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412523 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412523 — 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

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