What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422092 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 5422092?

Cleaning: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $81.31 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $760.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $110.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $8.70 awarded to landlord; Mileage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains, curtain hooks, curtain tra…: $370.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $206.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Slide Holders: $51.51 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation And Painting: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.10 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $522.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422092?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13572533-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422092 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 5422092?

Cleaning: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $81.31 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $760.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $110.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $8.70 awarded to landlord; Mileage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains, curtain hooks, curtain tra…: $370.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $206.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Slide Holders: $51.51 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation And Painting: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.10 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $522.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422092?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13572533-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422092 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422092 — net $5,209.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Landlord labout	$760.00	Cleaning: Landlord labout
Cleaning: Materials	$110.48	Cleaning: Materials
Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire & cleaning materials	$81.31	Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire & cleaning materials
Carpet Cleaning: Landlord labour	$95.00	Carpet Cleaning: Landlord labour
Rubbish removal: Landlord labour	$522.50	Rubbish removal: Landlord labour
Rubbish removal: Dump fees	$360.10	Rubbish removal: Dump fees
Rubbish removal: Trailer hire	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Trailer hire
Lock/key replacement	$240.00	Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs (2	$8.70	Light bulbs (2
Repairs: Insurance excess - carpet	$1,125.00	Repairs: Insurance excess - carpet
Repairs: Insurance excess - cooktop	$206.25	Repairs: Insurance excess - cooktop
Repairs: Oven slide holders	$51.51	Repairs: Oven slide holders
__________________________________________________________________________________ 54220922 Window repairs	$300.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 54220922 Window repairs
Repairs: Insurance excess - garage door	$550.00	Repairs: Insurance excess - garage door
Repairs: Wall remediation and painting	$2,800.00	Repairs: Wall remediation and painting
Repairs: Curtains, curtain hooks, curtain tracks	$370.68	Repairs: Curtains, curtain hooks, curtain tracks
Mileage	$180.00	Mileage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,209.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,209.53

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Dianna Michelle Vallett must pay [The landlord/s] $5,209.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 6 January 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded in person. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded int their absence.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claims for the replacement of three toilet seats and toilet roll holder due to a lack of evidence recording damage. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2021 with the fixed term ending on 12 February 2023.
The tenancy ended on 9 November 2025.

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 “Act”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord seeks the following costs they say were incurred in order to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy: a. Cleaning: landlord labour 55 hours at $47.50 per hour - $2,765.72 b. Cleaning materials - $110.48 c. Rug Doctor hire and cleaning materials - $81.31 d. Carpet cleaning: landlord labour 5 hours at $47.50 per hour - $237.50 e. Professional carpet cleaning - $190.00 f. Rubbish removal: landlord labour costs 22 hours at $47.50 per hour - $1,045.00 g. Rubbish dump fees - $360.10 h. Trailer hire - $60.00
The Tribunal was provided with the following evidence to prove the landlord’s costs: a. A spreadsheet of the landlord’s costs. b. A landlord cleaning invoice dated 16 December 2025 recording 28.5 hours of labour hours between 16 November 2026 and 6 December 2025 totalling $1,353.75. c. A landlord carpet cleaning invoice dated 30 November 2025 for 5 hours labour totalling $237.50. d. A landlord rubbish removal invoice for 22 hours of labour costs between 14 and 21 November 2025 totalling $1,045.00. e. A Pak’n Save invoice totalling $72.32 for cleaning products. f. A Woolworths invoice for $29.18 for cleaning products. g. A Bunnings invoice for cleaning products, Rug Doctor hire, Rug Doctor cleaning products, and light bulbs. The costs of these items totalled $124.70. h. Chem Dry invoice totalling $190.00.
At the hearing, the Property Manager told the Tribunal the landlord now seeks $1,045.00 for cleaning labour charges - being 22 hours at $47.50 per hour. The Property Manager advised the landlord elected to undertake a significant amount of cleaning, repairs, and maintenance at the property themselves, to reduce their own financial loss. The Tribunal heard the landlord’s labour costs matched the hour rate charged by the Property Managers cleaning contractors.
The Property manager told the Tribunal that at the end of the tenancy the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failed to remove all of their belongings and rubbish.
The Tribunal heard the property was approximately one year old when the tenant moved in. The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the property was provided in a clean, tidy, and undamaged condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs which records: a. All of the rubbish and recycling bins contained rubbish. b. Rubbish and dog excrement needed to be removed from the lawns and gardens, and the lawns needed mowing. c. There were drawings on the exterior bricks and concrete, and fairy lights needed to be removed from the paved outdoor area. d. Items were left at the property including clothing and footwear, toys, two fridges, outdoor chairs, wooden stools, food and alcohol, kitchen items, cleaning materials, household linen, two pallets, a tyre, and general rubbish. e. The carpets were stained and required cleaning and the hard-flooring was dirty and required mopping. f. The walls, ceilings, floors, and door frames were marked and dirty. A large stain was shown on the kitchen ceiling. g. The kitchen was dirty, the cupboards had not been emptied and wiped out, the sink, taps, dishwasher, oven, and range required cleaning. h. The bathrooms and toilets were dirty and required cleaning.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this extra level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all items were removed.
Based on the photographs, the size of the property and the work undertaken the Tribunal orders the following costs: a. Cleaning: landlord labour $760.00 b. Cleaning materials - $110.48 c. Rug Doctor hire and cleaning materials - $81.31 d. Carpet cleaning: landlord labour $95.00 e. Rubbish removal: landlord labour $522.50 f. Rubbish dump fees - $360.10 g. Trailer hire - $60.00
I am not satisfied that the labour hours claimed for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal cost are reasonable. The property did require cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish to be removed, however the hours claimed exceeded what the Tribunal would have expected a commercial cleaner to charge for these services. The costs ordered give the landlord: a. 16 hours of labour (at the rate of $47.50 as claimed) to clean the property. b. 2 hours of labour (at the rate of $47.50 as claimed) to clean the carpets using a Rug Doctor. c. 11 hours of labour for rubbish removal.
The Tribunal declines to order carpet cleaning costs claimed for professional carpet cleaning. The contractors invoice records the contractor “cleaned unstained carpet areas due to customer deciding to replace carpet with stains”. The Tribunal has already awarded compensation for carpet cleaning costs and the general legal position is that awarding costs for the same issue twice (double recovery) violates the principle that a party should only be compensated for their actual loss.

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the landlord seeks compensation of $240.00 after paying a contractor to re-key two locks and replace the lock on the letter box. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The amount claimed is proved.

Did the tenant replace missing light bulbs?

The landlord seeks compensation of $8.70 after discovering two lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is proved.

Is the tenant liable to replace the garage door battery?

The landlord seeks compensation of $4.90 to replace the battery in the garage door remote controller. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
No evidence was provided to prove the battery required replacing and 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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Did the tenant damage the carpet
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,250.00 after successfully claiming insurance to replace the carpet in the lounge and two bedrooms due to staining. The landlord was required to pay an insurance excess of $750.00 per room.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the carpet was provided in good clean condition free from stains. The carpet was approximately one year old at the commencement of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy the carpet in the lounge was stained with multiple red and brown marks, the carpet in the master bedroom had dark red, yellow, and light brown staining, and the carpet in bedroom two had yellow, brown, and white staining. These stains were not removed after the carpet was cleaned.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant caused stain damage to the carpet and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet was approximately one year old at the beginning of the tenancy. At that end of the tenancy the carpet was approximately five years old. The Tribunal considers carpet in a residential property generally has a life expectancy of around 10 years. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay compensation in the amount of $1,125.00.

Did the tenant damage the cooktop and oven?

The landlord seeks $550.00 compensation, the insurance excess charged after the damaged cooktop was replaced, and $51.51 to replace the damaged oven slide holders. An insurance settlement document was provided to evidence the insurance claim and a receipt was provided for the oven slide holders.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs prove the cooktop and oven were provided in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy inspection report and photographs shows the cooktop was cracked and damaged on the left-hand side making it unsafe. The oven slide holders were damaged and sagging.
Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds the cooktop and oven slide holders were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The cooktop was approximately five years old at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal considers that a residential appliances have a life expectancy of around 8 years. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal awards $206.25 compensation. The Tribunal orders the full amount claimed to replace the broken oven slide holders.

Did the tenant break the window by the front door?

The landlord seeks $300.00 after paying a contractor to replace a double-glazed window by the front door. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the window was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy photographs show the window was smashed and held together with plastic tape.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant damaged the window during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant damage the garage door?

The landlord seeks $550.00 compensation, the insurance excess charged after the damaged garage door was replaced. An insurance settlement documents was provided to evidence the amount claimed.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs prove the garage door was provided in a good operable condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal heard that at the end of the tenancy the garage door had been bent outwards preventing it from opening. The landlord said that as a result of the damage the whole door needed to be replaced. The end of tenancy photographs confirmed the damage, as described, to the garage door.
Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the garage door was damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. No adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made and the amount claimed is ordered. Did the tenant cause damage to the walls requiring remediation
The landlord seeks the following costs for wall remediation: a. 2 x wall patches - $19.96 (receipt provided) b. Landlord labour for interior paint preparation – 22 hours at $47.50 totalling $1,045.00 (landlord invoice provided). c. Interior painting of the kitchen, living room, bedrooms 1 – 3, stairway and hallway - $6,957.50 (contractor invoice provided).
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the walls and ceilings in the property were provided in good condition. At the commencement of the tenancy the following defects were identified: a. Lounge: a small dent on the bottom right-hand wall and scuff marks on the left-hand wall. b. Garage: small dent in the back wall on the left.
The end of tenancy inspection report and photographs identify the following damage at the end of the tenancy: a. Dining room: walls heavily marked and damaged. b. Kitchen: ceiling large stain and walls marked and damaged. c. Lounge: walls marked and damaged. d. Stairs and landing: walls marked and damaged – large hole required patching. e. Master bedroom: walls marked and damaged – large hole required patching. f. Bedroom 2: walls marked and damaged. g. Bedroom 3: walls marked and damaged.
The damage included holes, chips, dents, gouges, scuff marks, miss matched paint, unpainted plaster patches, and an area where strip lights had been removed causing paint damage.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant damaged the interior walls and kitchen ceiling and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord is seeking a total of $8,022.46 for wall and ceiling remediation and painting costs. The calculation of how much of this cost the tenant should pay is not straight forward. The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. Paint in residential dwellings is generally considered to last between 5 and 10 years.
Weighing all of these factors the Tribunal considers the tenant is liable to pay $2,800.00 for the cost of wall and ceiling remediation and painting. That amount reflects that the Tribunal considers the damage was caused carelessly and was not covered by the landlord's insurance. In accordance with section 49B(3) of the Act the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.

Is the tenant responsible for damage and missing curtains?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $370.68 for curtain cleaning and rehanging and replacement curtain hooks, two rail and curtains. Invoices detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the curtains were provided in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The end of tenancy photographs proved the following: a. The kitchen curtain was damaged and heavily soiled and needed to be replaced. b. The curtain hooks in the lounge were broken, the curtain track was damaged and the curtains was stained and needed to be replaced. c. The curtains on the stairs and landing were stained and the curtain track pull cord broken. The curtains needed to be washed and rehung and the curtain track required replacing. d. The curtains in bedroom 2 were missing and needed to be replaced.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the curtains; curtain hooks and curtain tracks were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal considers that curtains have an average life expectancy of 8 years. However no adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made. The landlord was able to take advantage of a two for one offer on replacement curtains reducing the cost to the tenant. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant damage the lawns?

The landlord seeks compensation of $29.89 to remediate damage to the lawns and an invoice for the cost of lawn seeds and lawn soil was provided.
The Tribunal heard the holes in the lawn were created by the tenant’s puppies. This breached the terms of the tenancy agreement as the tenant did not have permission to keep pets.
The Tribunal was able to compare and contrast the condition of the lawn at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant damaged the lawn. The lawn was patchy at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy there are track marks and holes in the lawn consistent with being walked on. The Tribunal considers this to be fair wear and tear and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay mileage?

The landlord seeks mileage totalling $1,684.80 after making 6 round trips from their home in Auckland to the property to undertake cleaning, repairs, and maintenance. Each round trip was calculated to be 240 km which the landlord charged at the rate of $1.17 per kilometre. The costs were detailed in the landlord’s spreadsheet.
The Tribunal can award compensation to landlord’s for mileage costs provided these costs are actual, reasonable, and incurred due to damage caused by the tenant.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord travelled from Auckland to Hamilton to undertake cleaning, repairs, and maintenance to the property after the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from damage. However the Tribunal is not satisfied the amount claimed is reasonable. The landlord choose to complete the work themselves to minimise their costs. Had contractors completed the work then it was more likely than not that those professionals would have been Hamilton based. In addition the landlord has failed to prove their actual loss by providing fuel receipts.
On that basis the Tribunal awards the landlord $180.00 milage. That is a reasonable mileage costs the Tribunal would expect a Hamilton based contractor would charge to attend a job. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422092 — net $5,209.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Landlord labout	$760.00	Cleaning: Landlord labout
Cleaning: Materials	$110.48	Cleaning: Materials
Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire & cleaning materials	$81.31	Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire & cleaning materials
Carpet Cleaning: Landlord labour	$95.00	Carpet Cleaning: Landlord labour
Rubbish removal: Landlord labour	$522.50	Rubbish removal: Landlord labour
Rubbish removal: Dump fees	$360.10	Rubbish removal: Dump fees
Rubbish removal: Trailer hire	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Trailer hire
Lock/key replacement	$240.00	Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs (2	$8.70	Light bulbs (2
Repairs: Insurance excess - carpet	$1,125.00	Repairs: Insurance excess - carpet
Repairs: Insurance excess - cooktop	$206.25	Repairs: Insurance excess - cooktop
Repairs: Oven slide holders	$51.51	Repairs: Oven slide holders
__________________________________________________________________________________ 54220922 Window repairs	$300.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 54220922 Window repairs
Repairs: Insurance excess - garage door	$550.00	Repairs: Insurance excess - garage door
Repairs: Wall remediation and painting	$2,800.00	Repairs: Wall remediation and painting
Repairs: Curtains, curtain hooks, curtain tracks	$370.68	Repairs: Curtains, curtain hooks, curtain tracks
Mileage	$180.00	Mileage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,209.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,209.53

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Dianna Michelle Vallett must pay [The landlord/s] $5,209.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 6 January 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded in person. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded int their absence.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claims for the replacement of three toilet seats and toilet roll holder due to a lack of evidence recording damage. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2021 with the fixed term ending on 12 February 2023.
The tenancy ended on 9 November 2025.

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 “Act”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord seeks the following costs they say were incurred in order to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy: a. Cleaning: landlord labour 55 hours at $47.50 per hour - $2,765.72 b. Cleaning materials - $110.48 c. Rug Doctor hire and cleaning materials - $81.31 d. Carpet cleaning: landlord labour 5 hours at $47.50 per hour - $237.50 e. Professional carpet cleaning - $190.00 f. Rubbish removal: landlord labour costs 22 hours at $47.50 per hour - $1,045.00 g. Rubbish dump fees - $360.10 h. Trailer hire - $60.00
The Tribunal was provided with the following evidence to prove the landlord’s costs: a. A spreadsheet of the landlord’s costs. b. A landlord cleaning invoice dated 16 December 2025 recording 28.5 hours of labour hours between 16 November 2026 and 6 December 2025 totalling $1,353.75. c. A landlord carpet cleaning invoice dated 30 November 2025 for 5 hours labour totalling $237.50. d. A landlord rubbish removal invoice for 22 hours of labour costs between 14 and 21 November 2025 totalling $1,045.00. e. A Pak’n Save invoice totalling $72.32 for cleaning products. f. A Woolworths invoice for $29.18 for cleaning products. g. A Bunnings invoice for cleaning products, Rug Doctor hire, Rug Doctor cleaning products, and light bulbs. The costs of these items totalled $124.70. h. Chem Dry invoice totalling $190.00.
At the hearing, the Property Manager told the Tribunal the landlord now seeks $1,045.00 for cleaning labour charges - being 22 hours at $47.50 per hour. The Property Manager advised the landlord elected to undertake a significant amount of cleaning, repairs, and maintenance at the property themselves, to reduce their own financial loss. The Tribunal heard the landlord’s labour costs matched the hour rate charged by the Property Managers cleaning contractors.
The Property manager told the Tribunal that at the end of the tenancy the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failed to remove all of their belongings and rubbish.
The Tribunal heard the property was approximately one year old when the tenant moved in. The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the property was provided in a clean, tidy, and undamaged condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs which records: a. All of the rubbish and recycling bins contained rubbish. b. Rubbish and dog excrement needed to be removed from the lawns and gardens, and the lawns needed mowing. c. There were drawings on the exterior bricks and concrete, and fairy lights needed to be removed from the paved outdoor area. d. Items were left at the property including clothing and footwear, toys, two fridges, outdoor chairs, wooden stools, food and alcohol, kitchen items, cleaning materials, household linen, two pallets, a tyre, and general rubbish. e. The carpets were stained and required cleaning and the hard-flooring was dirty and required mopping. f. The walls, ceilings, floors, and door frames were marked and dirty. A large stain was shown on the kitchen ceiling. g. The kitchen was dirty, the cupboards had not been emptied and wiped out, the sink, taps, dishwasher, oven, and range required cleaning. h. The bathrooms and toilets were dirty and required cleaning.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this extra level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all items were removed.
Based on the photographs, the size of the property and the work undertaken the Tribunal orders the following costs: a. Cleaning: landlord labour $760.00 b. Cleaning materials - $110.48 c. Rug Doctor hire and cleaning materials - $81.31 d. Carpet cleaning: landlord labour $95.00 e. Rubbish removal: landlord labour $522.50 f. Rubbish dump fees - $360.10 g. Trailer hire - $60.00
I am not satisfied that the labour hours claimed for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal cost are reasonable. The property did require cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish to be removed, however the hours claimed exceeded what the Tribunal would have expected a commercial cleaner to charge for these services. The costs ordered give the landlord: a. 16 hours of labour (at the rate of $47.50 as claimed) to clean the property. b. 2 hours of labour (at the rate of $47.50 as claimed) to clean the carpets using a Rug Doctor. c. 11 hours of labour for rubbish removal.
The Tribunal declines to order carpet cleaning costs claimed for professional carpet cleaning. The contractors invoice records the contractor “cleaned unstained carpet areas due to customer deciding to replace carpet with stains”. The Tribunal has already awarded compensation for carpet cleaning costs and the general legal position is that awarding costs for the same issue twice (double recovery) violates the principle that a party should only be compensated for their actual loss.

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the landlord seeks compensation of $240.00 after paying a contractor to re-key two locks and replace the lock on the letter box. An invoice detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The amount claimed is proved.

Did the tenant replace missing light bulbs?

The landlord seeks compensation of $8.70 after discovering two lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is proved.

Is the tenant liable to replace the garage door battery?

The landlord seeks compensation of $4.90 to replace the battery in the garage door remote controller. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
No evidence was provided to prove the battery required replacing and 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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Did the tenant damage the carpet
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,250.00 after successfully claiming insurance to replace the carpet in the lounge and two bedrooms due to staining. The landlord was required to pay an insurance excess of $750.00 per room.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the carpet was provided in good clean condition free from stains. The carpet was approximately one year old at the commencement of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy the carpet in the lounge was stained with multiple red and brown marks, the carpet in the master bedroom had dark red, yellow, and light brown staining, and the carpet in bedroom two had yellow, brown, and white staining. These stains were not removed after the carpet was cleaned.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant caused stain damage to the carpet and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet was approximately one year old at the beginning of the tenancy. At that end of the tenancy the carpet was approximately five years old. The Tribunal considers carpet in a residential property generally has a life expectancy of around 10 years. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay compensation in the amount of $1,125.00.

Did the tenant damage the cooktop and oven?

The landlord seeks $550.00 compensation, the insurance excess charged after the damaged cooktop was replaced, and $51.51 to replace the damaged oven slide holders. An insurance settlement document was provided to evidence the insurance claim and a receipt was provided for the oven slide holders.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs prove the cooktop and oven were provided in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy inspection report and photographs shows the cooktop was cracked and damaged on the left-hand side making it unsafe. The oven slide holders were damaged and sagging.
Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds the cooktop and oven slide holders were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The cooktop was approximately five years old at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal considers that a residential appliances have a life expectancy of around 8 years. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal awards $206.25 compensation. The Tribunal orders the full amount claimed to replace the broken oven slide holders.

Did the tenant break the window by the front door?

The landlord seeks $300.00 after paying a contractor to replace a double-glazed window by the front door. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the window was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy photographs show the window was smashed and held together with plastic tape.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant damaged the window during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant damage the garage door?

The landlord seeks $550.00 compensation, the insurance excess charged after the damaged garage door was replaced. An insurance settlement documents was provided to evidence the amount claimed.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs prove the garage door was provided in a good operable condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal heard that at the end of the tenancy the garage door had been bent outwards preventing it from opening. The landlord said that as a result of the damage the whole door needed to be replaced. The end of tenancy photographs confirmed the damage, as described, to the garage door.
Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the garage door was damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. No adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made and the amount claimed is ordered. Did the tenant cause damage to the walls requiring remediation
The landlord seeks the following costs for wall remediation: a. 2 x wall patches - $19.96 (receipt provided) b. Landlord labour for interior paint preparation – 22 hours at $47.50 totalling $1,045.00 (landlord invoice provided). c. Interior painting of the kitchen, living room, bedrooms 1 – 3, stairway and hallway - $6,957.50 (contractor invoice provided).
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the walls and ceilings in the property were provided in good condition. At the commencement of the tenancy the following defects were identified: a. Lounge: a small dent on the bottom right-hand wall and scuff marks on the left-hand wall. b. Garage: small dent in the back wall on the left.
The end of tenancy inspection report and photographs identify the following damage at the end of the tenancy: a. Dining room: walls heavily marked and damaged. b. Kitchen: ceiling large stain and walls marked and damaged. c. Lounge: walls marked and damaged. d. Stairs and landing: walls marked and damaged – large hole required patching. e. Master bedroom: walls marked and damaged – large hole required patching. f. Bedroom 2: walls marked and damaged. g. Bedroom 3: walls marked and damaged.
The damage included holes, chips, dents, gouges, scuff marks, miss matched paint, unpainted plaster patches, and an area where strip lights had been removed causing paint damage.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant damaged the interior walls and kitchen ceiling and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord is seeking a total of $8,022.46 for wall and ceiling remediation and painting costs. The calculation of how much of this cost the tenant should pay is not straight forward. The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. Paint in residential dwellings is generally considered to last between 5 and 10 years.
Weighing all of these factors the Tribunal considers the tenant is liable to pay $2,800.00 for the cost of wall and ceiling remediation and painting. That amount reflects that the Tribunal considers the damage was caused carelessly and was not covered by the landlord's insurance. In accordance with section 49B(3) of the Act the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.

Is the tenant responsible for damage and missing curtains?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $370.68 for curtain cleaning and rehanging and replacement curtain hooks, two rail and curtains. Invoices detailing the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs prove the curtains were provided in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The end of tenancy photographs proved the following: a. The kitchen curtain was damaged and heavily soiled and needed to be replaced. b. The curtain hooks in the lounge were broken, the curtain track was damaged and the curtains was stained and needed to be replaced. c. The curtains on the stairs and landing were stained and the curtain track pull cord broken. The curtains needed to be washed and rehung and the curtain track required replacing. d. The curtains in bedroom 2 were missing and needed to be replaced.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the curtains; curtain hooks and curtain tracks were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal considers that curtains have an average life expectancy of 8 years. However no adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made. The landlord was able to take advantage of a two for one offer on replacement curtains reducing the cost to the tenant. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant damage the lawns?

The landlord seeks compensation of $29.89 to remediate damage to the lawns and an invoice for the cost of lawn seeds and lawn soil was provided.
The Tribunal heard the holes in the lawn were created by the tenant’s puppies. This breached the terms of the tenancy agreement as the tenant did not have permission to keep pets.
The Tribunal was able to compare and contrast the condition of the lawn at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant damaged the lawn. The lawn was patchy at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy there are track marks and holes in the lawn consistent with being walked on. The Tribunal considers this to be fair wear and tear and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay mileage?

The landlord seeks mileage totalling $1,684.80 after making 6 round trips from their home in Auckland to the property to undertake cleaning, repairs, and maintenance. Each round trip was calculated to be 240 km which the landlord charged at the rate of $1.17 per kilometre. The costs were detailed in the landlord’s spreadsheet.
The Tribunal can award compensation to landlord’s for mileage costs provided these costs are actual, reasonable, and incurred due to damage caused by the tenant.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord travelled from Auckland to Hamilton to undertake cleaning, repairs, and maintenance to the property after the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from damage. However the Tribunal is not satisfied the amount claimed is reasonable. The landlord choose to complete the work themselves to minimise their costs. Had contractors completed the work then it was more likely than not that those professionals would have been Hamilton based. In addition the landlord has failed to prove their actual loss by providing fuel receipts.
On that basis the Tribunal awards the landlord $180.00 milage. That is a reasonable mileage costs the Tribunal would expect a Hamilton based contractor would charge to attend a job. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant replace missing light bulbs?

Is the tenant liable to replace the garage door battery?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the cooktop and oven?

Did the tenant break the window by the front door?

Did the tenant damage the garage door?

Is the tenant responsible for damage and missing curtains?

Did the tenant damage the lawns?

Is the tenant liable to pay mileage?

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?

Did the tenant return the keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant replace missing light bulbs?

Is the tenant liable to replace the garage door battery?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the cooktop and oven?

Did the tenant break the window by the front door?

Did the tenant damage the garage door?

Is the tenant responsible for damage and missing curtains?

Did the tenant damage the lawns?

Is the tenant liable to pay mileage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions