Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5420919 — Property damage
Decided 17 Jun 2026 · Published 17 Jun 2026 · Application 5420919
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- This application includes reference to a withdrawal from the tenancy for Family Violence, so the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $969.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$245.00 Lawns and Garden work: and Rubbish Removal$75.00 Lock/key replacement$12.00 Replace furnishings: Door Mat$30.00 Repairs: Gate Hardware$300.00 Repairs: Paint above light switch$479.45 Repairs: 4 x insurance excesses - asphalt, vinyl flooring, gouge to wall and damage to skylight $2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,169.45 Bond (already released to landlord)$2,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$ 969.45
- In addition to Order 2 above, [Tenant 1] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,412.55 immediately, being rent arrears to 21 January 2026.
- The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing.
- The tenants did not attend.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been released to the landlord, by consent, following a previous Tribunal hearing.
- Before, and throughout the hearing, the Tribunal had to remind the landlord of some basic principles. A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove both: a. that the other party has breached its obligations; and b. the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)
How much is owed for rent?
- [Tenant 2] withdrew from the tenancy in December 2025. 1 Rent was up to date when she withdrew.
- [Tenant 1] is liable for the rent to the end of the tenancy on 21 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $2,412.55 owing for rent at the end of the tenancy. That amount includes the rent abatement adjustment required following a withdrawal.
- Based on the landlord’s evidence, including photographs, I am satisfied that the condition of the premises did not materially change between [Tenant 2]’s withdrawal and the tenancy being terminated. As such, [Tenant 2] remains liable for tidy up costs and damage to the premises. See s56B(3)(a) RTA. 1 Refer sections 56B to 56E Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 tenant did not return the keys. A door mat was missing at the end of the tenancy.
- 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 caused carelessly, and the landlord has 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.
- The landlord claimed for a range of alleged damage. Many were minor “wear and tear” items caused by normal living in a property (e.g. marks on skirting boards). Others were landlord maintenance items (e.g. drawer not closing). Some were not proved (e.g. carpet replacement).
- The landlord did prove that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: oil damage to asphalt, damage to vinyl flooring, gouge to gib wall, damage to skylight window, damage to gate hardware and wall damage above a light switch. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The repair costs for the first four items are more than the landlord’s insurance excess of $500. I have awarded the excess amount for those items. I have awarded repair costs for the gate repair and wall repair above the light switch.
- The landlord’s other claims are not proved and are dismissed.
- As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. This application involved a withdrawal from a tenancy under s56B, so I must supress the parties’ details. See s95A RTA.