Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5419454 — Property damage
Decided 28 Apr 2026 · Published 28 Apr 2026 · Application 5419454
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,851.24 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5380201 dated 19/11/2026$783.64 Carpet Cleaning$180.00 Lawns and Garden work$50.00 Cleaning$184.00 Replace Modem Cord$16.10 Repairs: Exterior Painting$149.50 Repairs: Bench Top Repairs: Mirror $460.00 $100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,951.24
- The Bond Centre is to pay $1,951.24 from the bond of $1,996.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.
- The balance of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre pending agreement between the tenants about who the balance should be paid to.
- As this application involves a tenancy where one tenant withdrew under s56B, all parties’ details are suppressed.
Reasons
- A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
- This had been a joint tenancy. The other tenant withdrew under the provisions of s56B RTA. There is no suggestion that this tenant was in anyway connected to the reasons for withdrawal.
- This tenant then became the sole tenant. The sole tenancy was terminated by Order of the Tribunal on 19 November 2025.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord was unsure of how to deal with the bond. The withdrawing tenant is not responsible to the landlord from the date of withdrawal. See s56(3)(a) RTA. However, the bond money is held for the landlord and the tenants jointly and severally. I did not see or hear evidence that this tenant agreed to release any of the bond to the withdrawing tenant. As such, the bond remains at the bond centre and can be applied to any orders made against the tenant.
- The Bond Centre is to pay $1,851.24 from the bond of $1,996.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately. The balance of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre pending agreement between the tenants about who the balance should be paid to. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear or consider disputes between tenants as to how a bond should be apportioned between them.
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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs and receipts to establish its claim for carpet cleaning, cleaning and a replacement modem cord.
- The landlord also claimed $118.45 for gardening and rubbish. Having regard to the photographs, I award $50.00. The grounds were generally tidy and there was only a small amount of rubbish.
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.
- The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear; wall paint damage, exterior paint damage, chip to mirror, carpet stained and must be replaced, damage to stainless steel bench-top.
- The landlord provided in-going and out-going photographs of the premises. a. The landlord did not provide photographs of the carpet after it had been cleaned. It has not been replaced. This claim is dismissed. b. There is some exterior paint damage around the front door where a fixture has been removed. This is more than fair wear and tear. I award the remediation costs claimed of $149.50. c. The interior paint touch up required are the result of wear and tear from normal use of premises. They are minor bumps and knocks. The touch ups haven’t been done. This claim is dismissed. d. There appears to be a very minor chip to a vanity mirror. The landlord claims the cost of a new cabinet and installation. The cost and remedy claimed is out of proportion to the small chip that can be seen in the photographs. There is modest loss of aesthetic value as aresult of the chip. I award $100. e. The stainless-steel bench top is badly damaged by cut marks. The damage is more than fair wear and tear from normal use of the bench. I award the repair cost of $460.
- As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. The previous order made on 19 November 2025 is incorporated into Order 1 above for enforcement purposes.
- As this application involves a tenancy where one tenant withdrew under s56B, all parties’ details are suppressed.