What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414868 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5414868?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $378.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Renew Clothes Lines: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $259.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13413670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414868 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5414868?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $378.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Renew Clothes Lines: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $259.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13413670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414868 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414868 — net $1,435.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$259.49	Water rates
Plant replacement	$378.00	Plant replacement
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$500.00	Repairs
Renew clothes lines	$20.00	Renew clothes lines
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,435.49
Bond	$3,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,435.49

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,435.49 from the bond, calculated as shown below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,435.49 [The tenant/s]: $2,084.51

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 11 December 2025. There is no claim for rent arrears.
The tenant does not dispute the claim for unpaid water rates. I am satisfied that the landlord fairly apportioned the 30 December 2025 Watercare invoice between the periods before and after the tenancy ended.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy a 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. 1
The landlord has provided entry inspection photographs, exit inspection photographs and photographs from a routine inspection in October 2025.
The landlord says that significant cleaning was required. The property manager was paid by the owner $450.00, for cleaning the oven, sinks, toilets, bathrooms, window seals, and to polish the marble kitchen counter.
The tenant acknowledges that she did not clean the oven and that some additional cleaning of the master bedroom bathroom may have been required, leading her to agree to contribute to additional cleaning costs.
The landlord’s correspondence states: “...when we refer to the house not being cleaned to the required standard, we are referring to the condition it was in when it was originally handed over to you.........At the final inspection there were several areas that did not meet the same standard, including the kitchen, oven, rangehood, cupboards, floors and bathrooms.”
These premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant cannot return the premises in brand new condition as it has been occupied. The obligation on a tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs provided by the landlord show that in most respects the premises were left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. The property 1 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA manager confirms that no cleaning costs were incurred by the owner over and above the cleaning costs the tenant is being asked to pay.
I find that the tenant should make a contribution to the cleaning costs but should not be required to fully indemnify the owner.
The property manager was paid $445.00 for carpet steam cleaning and polishing. The landlord’s evidence is that there had been flooding in the garage leaving odours when the tenancy ended and that the hallway also needed commercial cleaning – although I understand the whole premises were done.
The tenant accepts that some flooding occurred from the washing machine she installed, but says that she was not aware of any ongoing odours.
I accept that it is very difficult to prove the existence of odours but the evidence provided does not prove the need for the carpets to be professionally cleaned at the end of this 2 1/2 month tenancy.
The claim includes $95.00 for the lawn. The entry inspection photos show there was no lawn just dirt and some weeds. That claim is declined.

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. 2
In the case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) the District Court noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
For a newly built property such as this, any deterioration in condition will result from the first tenancy and will be immediately obvious.
The evidence shows that some damage to the premises in the form of scuff marks and other marks on walls fall into that category.
Other damage, including a large indentation in the gib board in the lounge and other holes and dents, go beyond fair wear and tear and is damage the tenant is responsible for. 2 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The owner paid the property manager $1,800.00 for wall repairs. The landlord has provided evidence in the form of a third party quote for $1,950.00 to show that the amount paid to the property manager was reasonable. The alternative quote shows that the work concerned was for “plaster repair and repainting of damaged wall and other areas...” (my emphasis)
My assessment of the evidence is that fair compensation for the damage the tenant is responsible for, excluding fair wear and tear, would be $1,000.00.
The question is whether there are applicable lesser limits to the tenant’s liability.
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. 3
The property manager confirms that the copy of the agreement included with the landlord’s evidence is the entire agreement between the parties. That agreement is deficient in a number of ways. It does not include information that a landlord must ensure is included such as: a. an insulation statement; 4 b. a Healthy Homes compliance statement; 5 c. an insurance statement which identifies the excess payable for any claim; 6
Each of those omissions is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
There is no application before the Tribunal for such awards, but the landlord’s failure to identify in the agreement, or at the hearing, whether the owner has insurance that might cover the claimed losses and what the excess payable on any claim would be, makes the application of s. 49B(3)(a) very difficult.
It is likely than the excess on any claim would be at least $500.00. It is possible that the insurer would require multiple excess payments if it determined the damage to be the result of multiple different events. That though is conjecture. This is the landlord’s claim to prove and it must provide the necessary evidence
The landlord has proved a loss resulting from damage the tenant is responsible for. It would seem unjust not to allow any compensation from the bond.
The landlord has committed unlawful acts. It would seem unjust not to recognise that.
Weighing those considerations. My finding is that the tenant should make a contribution of $500.00 to the cost of repairing the wall damage. 3 S. 49B(3)(a) RTA 4 S.13A(1A) RTA 5 S.13A(1CA) RTA 6 S.13A(2) RTA
The exit photos show that the lines on the clothes line are loose and have been retied. That should not happen from 21/2 months of normal wear and tear. The evidence does not prove a need for replacement of the whole clothes line frame. New line should have been sufficient.
The tenant’s son parked his car beside the house and damaged plants that had been planted there. The landlord had the plants replaced (the owner provided the plants but paid the property manager for the labour) so a Council inspection could be carried out for compliance with the building resource consent. Once the inspection was done, the owner had the plants removed and the area was turned into a parking space.
The tenant accepts that her son’s parking caused damage to the plants but says that she should not be required to pay for the labour to have them replaced, because they were removed anyway.
I understand that from the tenant’s point of view it seems unfair that she should be required to pay for the planting of plants the landlord then removed.
The landlord needed to have the plants replaced to meet Council requirements so suffered an actual loss. The need to have the plants reinstated was a foreseeable consequence of the damage caused by parking on them.
The landlord should be compensated for that loss. The loss resulted from intentional actions (in the sense that when he was parking there the tenant’s son must have known that the plants would be damaged) so the limitation on liability in s. 49B(3)(a) RTA does not apply.
I find that the landlord should be compensated the labour cost of replacing the plants, as proved by the invoice provided.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414868 — net $1,435.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$259.49	Water rates
Plant replacement	$378.00	Plant replacement
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$500.00	Repairs
Renew clothes lines	$20.00	Renew clothes lines
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,435.49
Bond	$3,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,435.49

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,435.49 from the bond, calculated as shown below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,435.49 [The tenant/s]: $2,084.51

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 11 December 2025. There is no claim for rent arrears.
The tenant does not dispute the claim for unpaid water rates. I am satisfied that the landlord fairly apportioned the 30 December 2025 Watercare invoice between the periods before and after the tenancy ended.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy a 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. 1
The landlord has provided entry inspection photographs, exit inspection photographs and photographs from a routine inspection in October 2025.
The landlord says that significant cleaning was required. The property manager was paid by the owner $450.00, for cleaning the oven, sinks, toilets, bathrooms, window seals, and to polish the marble kitchen counter.
The tenant acknowledges that she did not clean the oven and that some additional cleaning of the master bedroom bathroom may have been required, leading her to agree to contribute to additional cleaning costs.
The landlord’s correspondence states: “...when we refer to the house not being cleaned to the required standard, we are referring to the condition it was in when it was originally handed over to you.........At the final inspection there were several areas that did not meet the same standard, including the kitchen, oven, rangehood, cupboards, floors and bathrooms.”
These premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant cannot return the premises in brand new condition as it has been occupied. The obligation on a tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs provided by the landlord show that in most respects the premises were left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. The property 1 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA manager confirms that no cleaning costs were incurred by the owner over and above the cleaning costs the tenant is being asked to pay.
I find that the tenant should make a contribution to the cleaning costs but should not be required to fully indemnify the owner.
The property manager was paid $445.00 for carpet steam cleaning and polishing. The landlord’s evidence is that there had been flooding in the garage leaving odours when the tenancy ended and that the hallway also needed commercial cleaning – although I understand the whole premises were done.
The tenant accepts that some flooding occurred from the washing machine she installed, but says that she was not aware of any ongoing odours.
I accept that it is very difficult to prove the existence of odours but the evidence provided does not prove the need for the carpets to be professionally cleaned at the end of this 2 1/2 month tenancy.
The claim includes $95.00 for the lawn. The entry inspection photos show there was no lawn just dirt and some weeds. That claim is declined.

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. 2
In the case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) the District Court noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
For a newly built property such as this, any deterioration in condition will result from the first tenancy and will be immediately obvious.
The evidence shows that some damage to the premises in the form of scuff marks and other marks on walls fall into that category.
Other damage, including a large indentation in the gib board in the lounge and other holes and dents, go beyond fair wear and tear and is damage the tenant is responsible for. 2 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The owner paid the property manager $1,800.00 for wall repairs. The landlord has provided evidence in the form of a third party quote for $1,950.00 to show that the amount paid to the property manager was reasonable. The alternative quote shows that the work concerned was for “plaster repair and repainting of damaged wall and other areas...” (my emphasis)
My assessment of the evidence is that fair compensation for the damage the tenant is responsible for, excluding fair wear and tear, would be $1,000.00.
The question is whether there are applicable lesser limits to the tenant’s liability.
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. 3
The property manager confirms that the copy of the agreement included with the landlord’s evidence is the entire agreement between the parties. That agreement is deficient in a number of ways. It does not include information that a landlord must ensure is included such as: a. an insulation statement; 4 b. a Healthy Homes compliance statement; 5 c. an insurance statement which identifies the excess payable for any claim; 6
Each of those omissions is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
There is no application before the Tribunal for such awards, but the landlord’s failure to identify in the agreement, or at the hearing, whether the owner has insurance that might cover the claimed losses and what the excess payable on any claim would be, makes the application of s. 49B(3)(a) very difficult.
It is likely than the excess on any claim would be at least $500.00. It is possible that the insurer would require multiple excess payments if it determined the damage to be the result of multiple different events. That though is conjecture. This is the landlord’s claim to prove and it must provide the necessary evidence
The landlord has proved a loss resulting from damage the tenant is responsible for. It would seem unjust not to allow any compensation from the bond.
The landlord has committed unlawful acts. It would seem unjust not to recognise that.
Weighing those considerations. My finding is that the tenant should make a contribution of $500.00 to the cost of repairing the wall damage. 3 S. 49B(3)(a) RTA 4 S.13A(1A) RTA 5 S.13A(1CA) RTA 6 S.13A(2) RTA
The exit photos show that the lines on the clothes line are loose and have been retied. That should not happen from 21/2 months of normal wear and tear. The evidence does not prove a need for replacement of the whole clothes line frame. New line should have been sufficient.
The tenant’s son parked his car beside the house and damaged plants that had been planted there. The landlord had the plants replaced (the owner provided the plants but paid the property manager for the labour) so a Council inspection could be carried out for compliance with the building resource consent. Once the inspection was done, the owner had the plants removed and the area was turned into a parking space.
The tenant accepts that her son’s parking caused damage to the plants but says that she should not be required to pay for the labour to have them replaced, because they were removed anyway.
I understand that from the tenant’s point of view it seems unfair that she should be required to pay for the planting of plants the landlord then removed.
The landlord needed to have the plants replaced to meet Council requirements so suffered an actual loss. The need to have the plants reinstated was a foreseeable consequence of the damage caused by parking on them.
The landlord should be compensated for that loss. The loss resulted from intentional actions (in the sense that when he was parking there the tenant’s son must have known that the plants would be damaged) so the limitation on liability in s. 49B(3)(a) RTA does not apply.
I find that the landlord should be compensated the labour cost of replacing the plants, as proved by the invoice provided.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414868 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414868 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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