What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416714 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 5416714?

Cleaning: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $251.43 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bathroom Wall: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Bracket: $119.60 awarded to landlord; Window Sills: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Kitchen Sink: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416714?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13415075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416714 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 5416714?

Cleaning: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $251.43 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bathroom Wall: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Bracket: $119.60 awarded to landlord; Window Sills: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Kitchen Sink: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416714?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13415075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416714 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416714. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$251.43	Rent arrears
Repairs: Window sills	$300.00	Repairs: Window sills
Repairs: Wardrobe bracket	$119.60	Repairs: Wardrobe bracket
Repairs: Master bathroom wall	$1,000.00	Repairs: Master bathroom wall
Replace furnishings: Kitchen sink	$350.00	Replace furnishings: Kitchen sink
Carpet Cleaning: Stains	$132.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stains
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Cleaning chemicals	$50.00	Cleaning chemicals
Repairs: Garage door	$500.00	Repairs: Garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 7 July 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,231.03 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $48.97 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as required. The Landlord provided clear and detailed evidence that extensive cleaning was necessary upon vacating. This included cleaning of the kitchen (oven, rangehood, cupboards, grease on doors, and window frames), as well as the bathroom ceiling and fans, walls, skirting boards, and the garage. The exit inspection report corroborated these claims, identifying multiple areas requiring attention, including dirty kitchen drawers and cupboards, a soiled rangehood, and unclean bedroom walls. Additional issues such as dirt on window sills, the attic window, and the presence of an insect further demonstrate the unclean state in which the property was left.
The Landlord also claimed $117.50 for labour associated with curtain cleaning and $50.00 for cleaning materials, as well as $80.00 for mould removal from curtains in several bedrooms.
The Tenant submitted that she was not given an opportunity to complete the outstanding cleaning and would have addressed the issues if permitted. However, this does not diminish the Tenant’s obligation to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The Tenant also argued that the cost of cleaning materials was excessive and that some mould pre-existed on the curtains. This was not supported by the ingoing inspection report, which indicates that the curtains were free of mould at the commencement of the tenancy. While the Tenant claimed to have attempted cleaning the mould, the issue persisted at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord further claimed $132.00 for carpet cleaning due to stains in the bedrooms. The ingoing inspection report confirmed that bedrooms 3 and 4 were free of stains at the start of the tenancy.
The Tenant acknowledged awareness of stains in a bedroom but denied knowledge of other stains, attributing the responsibility to flatmates.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant did not meet leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The comparison between the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports demonstrates a deterioration in the condition of the property, including the development of mould on curtains and the need for substantial cleaning throughout. The Tenant remains responsible for the condition of the premises, including any damage or neglect caused by occupants or flatmates.
The claim for cleaning is awarded. The claim for labour relating to curtain cleaning and the mould was not supported by an invoice or evidence to show this work had been completed so this is not accepted. The cost of cleaning materials in the sum of $50.00 is reasonable and accepted. The claim for carpet stain removal is also accepted based on the photographs in the inspection reports.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 evidence establishes that damage occurred during the tenancy, including damaged windowsills, a dented kitchen sink, and damage to the garage door, damage, wardrobe bracket and bathroom wall.
Windowsill cracks: The Landlord claimed $2,512.50 for the repair of 13 cracked and damaged windowsills. The Landlord submitted that the damage was worsened by the Tenant’s attempts to repaint the windowsills, which was done in an incorrect colour and over existing surfaces. The ingoing and outgoing inspection reports showed the presence of damage in several bedrooms, although not all the photographs showed clear view of the windowsills.
The Tenant argued that the cracking resulted from condensation and therefore fair wear and tear.
In considering the evidence, I accept that the damage may have been caused by wear and tear and the Landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Tenant caused the cracking through misuse, such as failing to ventilate the property. The Landlord’s evidence only supported approximately half the window sills requiring repair but not 13.
I am satisfied that the Tenant contributed to the condition of the windowsills by attempting repairs in an unskilled manner, including the application of mismatched paint. This diminished the overall condition and appearance of the property. For this reason, I find the Tenant is responsible for some of the deterioration caused by these actions. I therefore award a contribution of $300.00 toward the remedial work.
The amount awarded is proved.
Kitchen sink replacement: The Landlord claimed $770.00 plus GST for the replacement of the kitchen stainless steel sink because a dent was discovered at the end of the tenancy, which may have been from dropping a heavy object. Ingoing and outgoing inspection reports were provided to show this damage occurred during the tenancy. There was also an invoice for the replacement sink.
The Tenant disputed liability for this damage.
In considering the evidence, I find the evidence confirms that the sink was undamaged at the start of the tenancy and dented at the end. However, the Landlord has not provided evidence demonstrating that replacement, rather than repair, was necessary or the most economical remedy. In the absence of a repair assessment or quote, the full replacement cost is not justified.
Given that the damage occurred during the tenancy, I find it appropriate that the Tenant bear some responsibility. I therefore award a reduced sum of $350.00, reflecting a reasonable contribution toward the loss.
The amount awarded is proved.
Bathroom vanity: The Landlord claimed the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity due to a hairline crack identified at the end of the tenancy. Photographs from the start and end of the tenancy were provided.
The Tenant submitted that this defect amounted to normal wear and tear.
In considering the evidence, I accept the Tenant’s position. The crack is minor, does not impair the function of the basin, and is consistent with gradual deterioration over time. It does not justify full replacement of the vanity.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Garage door replacement: The Landlord claimed $3,137.20 for the replacement of the garage door due to dents observed at the end of the tenancy. Photographic evidence confirms that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and an invoice for replacement was provided.
The Tenant denied knowledge of how or when the damage occurred.
In considering the evidence, while I am satisfied that the damage arose during the tenancy and is therefore the Tenant’s responsibility, the Landlord has again failed to provide evidence of a repair option or associated cost. The garage door remained functional, and without evidence that replacement was necessary, the full claim cannot be justified. Taking into account the nature of the damage, the lack of repair evidence, I award $500.00 as a reasonable contribution toward the damage.
The amount awarded proved.
Hallway wardrobe bracket: The Landlord claimed $119.60 for damage to a wardrobe bracket, supported by an outgoing inspection photograph showing the clothing pole detached from the wall, along with a repair quote.
The Tenant submitted that the room was not occupied and therefore could not explain how the damage occurred.
In considering the evidence, the ingoing inspection report indicates that the wardrobe bracket was in sound condition at the start of the tenancy, while the outgoing report clearly shows it detached and damaged. The Tenant remains liable for the condition of the entire premises throughout the tenancy regardless of whether the room was unoccupied or not. The Landlord has supported the claim with both photographic evidence and a repair quote.
The amount ordered is proved.
Master bathroom wall: The Landlord claimed $3,070.50 for damage to the bathroom wall caused by staining damage. The ingoing inspection report confirms the wall was undamaged at the start of the tenancy, whereas the outgoing report shows clear and visible damage. A repair quote was provided by the Landlord.
The Tenant acknowledged that the damage was caused by hair dye used by her husband, accepting responsibility for the marks but disputing the extent of the cost claimed.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has accepted liability for the damage. While the Landlord has claimed the full cost of repainting, they have not provided sufficient evidence that complete repainting of all walls was the only reasonable or necessary remedy, such as evidence that spot treatment or partial repainting was not feasible.
Taking into account the nature of the damage, the Tenant’s admission, I find that a reduced contribution by the Tenant is warranted. I therefore award $1,000.00 as a fair and proportionate amount.
The amount awarded is proved.
In reaching these decisions, I have applied the principles of betterment and depreciation. The Landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the Tenant complied with their obligations, but not to be placed in a better position. Consideration has been given to the age, condition, and expected lifespan of the affected items at the commencement of the tenancy.
As both parties have been somewhat substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is granted to both parties

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416714. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$251.43	Rent arrears
Repairs: Window sills	$300.00	Repairs: Window sills
Repairs: Wardrobe bracket	$119.60	Repairs: Wardrobe bracket
Repairs: Master bathroom wall	$1,000.00	Repairs: Master bathroom wall
Replace furnishings: Kitchen sink	$350.00	Replace furnishings: Kitchen sink
Carpet Cleaning: Stains	$132.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stains
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Cleaning chemicals	$50.00	Cleaning chemicals
Repairs: Garage door	$500.00	Repairs: Garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 7 July 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,231.03 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $48.97 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as required. The Landlord provided clear and detailed evidence that extensive cleaning was necessary upon vacating. This included cleaning of the kitchen (oven, rangehood, cupboards, grease on doors, and window frames), as well as the bathroom ceiling and fans, walls, skirting boards, and the garage. The exit inspection report corroborated these claims, identifying multiple areas requiring attention, including dirty kitchen drawers and cupboards, a soiled rangehood, and unclean bedroom walls. Additional issues such as dirt on window sills, the attic window, and the presence of an insect further demonstrate the unclean state in which the property was left.
The Landlord also claimed $117.50 for labour associated with curtain cleaning and $50.00 for cleaning materials, as well as $80.00 for mould removal from curtains in several bedrooms.
The Tenant submitted that she was not given an opportunity to complete the outstanding cleaning and would have addressed the issues if permitted. However, this does not diminish the Tenant’s obligation to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The Tenant also argued that the cost of cleaning materials was excessive and that some mould pre-existed on the curtains. This was not supported by the ingoing inspection report, which indicates that the curtains were free of mould at the commencement of the tenancy. While the Tenant claimed to have attempted cleaning the mould, the issue persisted at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord further claimed $132.00 for carpet cleaning due to stains in the bedrooms. The ingoing inspection report confirmed that bedrooms 3 and 4 were free of stains at the start of the tenancy.
The Tenant acknowledged awareness of stains in a bedroom but denied knowledge of other stains, attributing the responsibility to flatmates.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant did not meet leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The comparison between the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports demonstrates a deterioration in the condition of the property, including the development of mould on curtains and the need for substantial cleaning throughout. The Tenant remains responsible for the condition of the premises, including any damage or neglect caused by occupants or flatmates.
The claim for cleaning is awarded. The claim for labour relating to curtain cleaning and the mould was not supported by an invoice or evidence to show this work had been completed so this is not accepted. The cost of cleaning materials in the sum of $50.00 is reasonable and accepted. The claim for carpet stain removal is also accepted based on the photographs in the inspection reports.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 evidence establishes that damage occurred during the tenancy, including damaged windowsills, a dented kitchen sink, and damage to the garage door, damage, wardrobe bracket and bathroom wall.
Windowsill cracks: The Landlord claimed $2,512.50 for the repair of 13 cracked and damaged windowsills. The Landlord submitted that the damage was worsened by the Tenant’s attempts to repaint the windowsills, which was done in an incorrect colour and over existing surfaces. The ingoing and outgoing inspection reports showed the presence of damage in several bedrooms, although not all the photographs showed clear view of the windowsills.
The Tenant argued that the cracking resulted from condensation and therefore fair wear and tear.
In considering the evidence, I accept that the damage may have been caused by wear and tear and the Landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Tenant caused the cracking through misuse, such as failing to ventilate the property. The Landlord’s evidence only supported approximately half the window sills requiring repair but not 13.
I am satisfied that the Tenant contributed to the condition of the windowsills by attempting repairs in an unskilled manner, including the application of mismatched paint. This diminished the overall condition and appearance of the property. For this reason, I find the Tenant is responsible for some of the deterioration caused by these actions. I therefore award a contribution of $300.00 toward the remedial work.
The amount awarded is proved.
Kitchen sink replacement: The Landlord claimed $770.00 plus GST for the replacement of the kitchen stainless steel sink because a dent was discovered at the end of the tenancy, which may have been from dropping a heavy object. Ingoing and outgoing inspection reports were provided to show this damage occurred during the tenancy. There was also an invoice for the replacement sink.
The Tenant disputed liability for this damage.
In considering the evidence, I find the evidence confirms that the sink was undamaged at the start of the tenancy and dented at the end. However, the Landlord has not provided evidence demonstrating that replacement, rather than repair, was necessary or the most economical remedy. In the absence of a repair assessment or quote, the full replacement cost is not justified.
Given that the damage occurred during the tenancy, I find it appropriate that the Tenant bear some responsibility. I therefore award a reduced sum of $350.00, reflecting a reasonable contribution toward the loss.
The amount awarded is proved.
Bathroom vanity: The Landlord claimed the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity due to a hairline crack identified at the end of the tenancy. Photographs from the start and end of the tenancy were provided.
The Tenant submitted that this defect amounted to normal wear and tear.
In considering the evidence, I accept the Tenant’s position. The crack is minor, does not impair the function of the basin, and is consistent with gradual deterioration over time. It does not justify full replacement of the vanity.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Garage door replacement: The Landlord claimed $3,137.20 for the replacement of the garage door due to dents observed at the end of the tenancy. Photographic evidence confirms that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and an invoice for replacement was provided.
The Tenant denied knowledge of how or when the damage occurred.
In considering the evidence, while I am satisfied that the damage arose during the tenancy and is therefore the Tenant’s responsibility, the Landlord has again failed to provide evidence of a repair option or associated cost. The garage door remained functional, and without evidence that replacement was necessary, the full claim cannot be justified. Taking into account the nature of the damage, the lack of repair evidence, I award $500.00 as a reasonable contribution toward the damage.
The amount awarded proved.
Hallway wardrobe bracket: The Landlord claimed $119.60 for damage to a wardrobe bracket, supported by an outgoing inspection photograph showing the clothing pole detached from the wall, along with a repair quote.
The Tenant submitted that the room was not occupied and therefore could not explain how the damage occurred.
In considering the evidence, the ingoing inspection report indicates that the wardrobe bracket was in sound condition at the start of the tenancy, while the outgoing report clearly shows it detached and damaged. The Tenant remains liable for the condition of the entire premises throughout the tenancy regardless of whether the room was unoccupied or not. The Landlord has supported the claim with both photographic evidence and a repair quote.
The amount ordered is proved.
Master bathroom wall: The Landlord claimed $3,070.50 for damage to the bathroom wall caused by staining damage. The ingoing inspection report confirms the wall was undamaged at the start of the tenancy, whereas the outgoing report shows clear and visible damage. A repair quote was provided by the Landlord.
The Tenant acknowledged that the damage was caused by hair dye used by her husband, accepting responsibility for the marks but disputing the extent of the cost claimed.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has accepted liability for the damage. While the Landlord has claimed the full cost of repainting, they have not provided sufficient evidence that complete repainting of all walls was the only reasonable or necessary remedy, such as evidence that spot treatment or partial repainting was not feasible.
Taking into account the nature of the damage, the Tenant’s admission, I find that a reduced contribution by the Tenant is warranted. I therefore award $1,000.00 as a fair and proportionate amount.
The amount awarded is proved.
In reaching these decisions, I have applied the principles of betterment and depreciation. The Landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the Tenant complied with their obligations, but not to be placed in a better position. Consideration has been given to the age, condition, and expected lifespan of the affected items at the commencement of the tenancy.
As both parties have been somewhat substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is granted to both parties

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416714 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416714 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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 arrears?

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