What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422655 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 5422655?

Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.60 awarded to landlord; Rent: $94.29 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $168.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422655?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13613082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422655 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 5422655?

Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.60 awarded to landlord; Rent: $94.29 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $168.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422655?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13613082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422655 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422655. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 18 December 2025	$94.29	Rent to 18 December 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$168.84	Water charges to end of tenancy
Repairs to wall behind stove	$149.50	Repairs to wall behind stove
Replacement curtains	$39.60	Replacement curtains

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $480.23 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,159.77 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2026.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 12 January 2026 for rent arrears, outgoings, and compensation.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 7 January 2026 for refund of the bond and compensation.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement starting on 9 November 2023 at a rent of $660.00 and with a bond of $2,640.00. The agreement purported to be for a fixed term but was expressed to start and end on the same day. I have treated the tenancy as periodic.
After the tenancy ended the landlord was unable to re-let the premises and the property was sold. Landlord’s Application Rent and Water
The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025, pursuant to the Tenant’s termination notice. The tenant returned the key on that day. The landlord was not satisfied with the standard of cleaning and so the tenant returned to tidy up and do further cleaning. The landlord has claimed rent for an additional four days for this period (18 December to 21 December 2025).
I find that the tenant had vacated, and the tenancy ended, on 18 December 2025. The tenant is liable for rent to that date but not afterwards.
Initially the tenant said that, because their final rent payment was on 17 December 2025, they had overpaid. No missing rent payments were identified, and the landlord’s rent summary shows the rent was paid to 17 December 2025. I award rent arrears of one day (18 December 2025) in the sum of $94.39.
The claim for water was supported by a schedule and water invoices. I award $168.84 for water charges to the end of the tenancy. Tenant Damage
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.
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $550.00.
The landlord claimed the cost of replacement curtains ($39.60) replacement of nine internal door handles ($330.00) damage to the outside block wall ($402.50) damage behind the stove ($149.50) and damage to the kitchen flooring ($2,012.50).
The tenant acknowledged that there was an agreement to replace the curtains. I award the cost of replacement.
The tenant disputed the claim for door handles, on the basis that this would have been raised at an inspection if it was an issue. The tenant also said they were not aware of any damage being caused to the door handles.
The invoice referred to replacing 11 return springs on interior doors and replacing two latch encasements. I cannot see any physical damage to the doors or the door handles in the photographs, although several are hanging down and seem to have a broken internal mechanism. The landlord said the builder told them some internal parts needed replacing, but there was no written statement from the builder, explaining how the tenants had caused the damage. Given the age of the premises (built in the 1960’s) I consider this might well have been a maintenance issue.
There was damage to the top row of a high concrete block boundary wall. The wall looks to be at least 1.5 metres high, and probably higher. The tenant did not know how the damage had been caused. There are no signs of an impact to the three uppermost concrete blocks, which appear to have come loose. The damage may have happened during the tenancy as the landlord believes, but I am not satisfied that the tenant caused this damage.
There was damage behind the stove, a horizontal gash in the wall. The tenant said this was fair wear and tear but acknowledged that the damage could have been caused by the oven being moved in and out of position. I find that this was carelessly caused damage. I award the amount claimed for this repair.
The vinyl in the kitchen had some damage at the end of the tenancy. A few small marks are visible in the photographs. The tenant provided a photograph showing areas where there was damage at the start of the tenancy, and I note that the flooring was about 10 years old.
It is unclear to what extent there was pre-existing damage. Further, the landlord only obtained a quote for the flooring repair, and no invoice was provided to show that the flooring was replaced. Given that the premises were subsequently sold on an “as is” basis, it is not clear that the landlord has suffered any loss due to the condition of the flooring. Tenant’s Application Labour Costs
The tenant claimed the cost of their labour cleaning and tidying the premises. The tenant said they agreed to go back to the property to avoid conflict with the landlord.
The landlord said they were being asked to pay for tidying up that should have been done by the tenant already and pointed to photographs of the tenant’s Ute that was full of rubbish.
The parties could have agreed that the tenant would be paid for their work, but absent such an agreement, I consider it is not for the Tribunal to impose one. Depending on the condition of the property when the keys were returned, in terms of tidying and cleaning it is possible the tenant was only doing what they were obligated to do by the tenancy agreement. The photographs taken on 17 December 2025 do not show any obvious internal issues, however, the landlord identified indoor and outdoor cleaning and tidying work in her email of 19 December 2025.
I am not satisfied that the tenant should be compensated for their cleaning and tidying efforts after the end of the tenancy. They volunteered to do this to avoid a dispute. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant said the landlord shadowed them during the 7 hours they spent cleaning, directing how the work was done, and they found this intimidating. The landlord said she wanted to help, because she wanted the premises to be in a good, clean condition, as they had been at the start of the tenancy.
A photograph taken by the tenant shows the landlord cleaning at the sink in the kitchen. Until the end of the tenancy, the parties had a good relationship. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s presence amounted to a breach of quiet enjoyment, especially as the tenancy had ended by this time.
The tenant referred to an incident during the tidy up when a person came round to view the premises. The tenant overhead the conversation between the landlord and the visitor, in which the landlord allegedly criticised the tenant for the condition of the house. It turned out that the visitor was known to the tenant’s family, which increased their distress.
The landlord said she did not make any such comments. I note there is an email from the landlord on 2 December 2025 about a viewing in which the landlord says it did not matter what the property looked like.
I have the same concerns about this incident as with the claim about the landlord’s supervision of the cleaning. A social blunder or faux pas does not necessarily mean there is a breach of quiet enjoyment.
Before leaving the hearing room the tenant thanked the landlord and expressed regret for how matters had ended. The landlord apologised and said they had intended no offence. These acknowledgements were appropriate and more meaningful than a legal remedy. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The parties will bear their own costs.
Both parties requested name suppression. I exercise my discretion and grant suppression. The applications do not engage the public interest.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422655. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 18 December 2025	$94.29	Rent to 18 December 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$168.84	Water charges to end of tenancy
Repairs to wall behind stove	$149.50	Repairs to wall behind stove
Replacement curtains	$39.60	Replacement curtains

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $480.23 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,159.77 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2026.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 12 January 2026 for rent arrears, outgoings, and compensation.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 7 January 2026 for refund of the bond and compensation.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement starting on 9 November 2023 at a rent of $660.00 and with a bond of $2,640.00. The agreement purported to be for a fixed term but was expressed to start and end on the same day. I have treated the tenancy as periodic.
After the tenancy ended the landlord was unable to re-let the premises and the property was sold. Landlord’s Application Rent and Water
The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025, pursuant to the Tenant’s termination notice. The tenant returned the key on that day. The landlord was not satisfied with the standard of cleaning and so the tenant returned to tidy up and do further cleaning. The landlord has claimed rent for an additional four days for this period (18 December to 21 December 2025).
I find that the tenant had vacated, and the tenancy ended, on 18 December 2025. The tenant is liable for rent to that date but not afterwards.
Initially the tenant said that, because their final rent payment was on 17 December 2025, they had overpaid. No missing rent payments were identified, and the landlord’s rent summary shows the rent was paid to 17 December 2025. I award rent arrears of one day (18 December 2025) in the sum of $94.39.
The claim for water was supported by a schedule and water invoices. I award $168.84 for water charges to the end of the tenancy. Tenant Damage
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.
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $550.00.
The landlord claimed the cost of replacement curtains ($39.60) replacement of nine internal door handles ($330.00) damage to the outside block wall ($402.50) damage behind the stove ($149.50) and damage to the kitchen flooring ($2,012.50).
The tenant acknowledged that there was an agreement to replace the curtains. I award the cost of replacement.
The tenant disputed the claim for door handles, on the basis that this would have been raised at an inspection if it was an issue. The tenant also said they were not aware of any damage being caused to the door handles.
The invoice referred to replacing 11 return springs on interior doors and replacing two latch encasements. I cannot see any physical damage to the doors or the door handles in the photographs, although several are hanging down and seem to have a broken internal mechanism. The landlord said the builder told them some internal parts needed replacing, but there was no written statement from the builder, explaining how the tenants had caused the damage. Given the age of the premises (built in the 1960’s) I consider this might well have been a maintenance issue.
There was damage to the top row of a high concrete block boundary wall. The wall looks to be at least 1.5 metres high, and probably higher. The tenant did not know how the damage had been caused. There are no signs of an impact to the three uppermost concrete blocks, which appear to have come loose. The damage may have happened during the tenancy as the landlord believes, but I am not satisfied that the tenant caused this damage.
There was damage behind the stove, a horizontal gash in the wall. The tenant said this was fair wear and tear but acknowledged that the damage could have been caused by the oven being moved in and out of position. I find that this was carelessly caused damage. I award the amount claimed for this repair.
The vinyl in the kitchen had some damage at the end of the tenancy. A few small marks are visible in the photographs. The tenant provided a photograph showing areas where there was damage at the start of the tenancy, and I note that the flooring was about 10 years old.
It is unclear to what extent there was pre-existing damage. Further, the landlord only obtained a quote for the flooring repair, and no invoice was provided to show that the flooring was replaced. Given that the premises were subsequently sold on an “as is” basis, it is not clear that the landlord has suffered any loss due to the condition of the flooring. Tenant’s Application Labour Costs
The tenant claimed the cost of their labour cleaning and tidying the premises. The tenant said they agreed to go back to the property to avoid conflict with the landlord.
The landlord said they were being asked to pay for tidying up that should have been done by the tenant already and pointed to photographs of the tenant’s Ute that was full of rubbish.
The parties could have agreed that the tenant would be paid for their work, but absent such an agreement, I consider it is not for the Tribunal to impose one. Depending on the condition of the property when the keys were returned, in terms of tidying and cleaning it is possible the tenant was only doing what they were obligated to do by the tenancy agreement. The photographs taken on 17 December 2025 do not show any obvious internal issues, however, the landlord identified indoor and outdoor cleaning and tidying work in her email of 19 December 2025.
I am not satisfied that the tenant should be compensated for their cleaning and tidying efforts after the end of the tenancy. They volunteered to do this to avoid a dispute. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant said the landlord shadowed them during the 7 hours they spent cleaning, directing how the work was done, and they found this intimidating. The landlord said she wanted to help, because she wanted the premises to be in a good, clean condition, as they had been at the start of the tenancy.
A photograph taken by the tenant shows the landlord cleaning at the sink in the kitchen. Until the end of the tenancy, the parties had a good relationship. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s presence amounted to a breach of quiet enjoyment, especially as the tenancy had ended by this time.
The tenant referred to an incident during the tidy up when a person came round to view the premises. The tenant overhead the conversation between the landlord and the visitor, in which the landlord allegedly criticised the tenant for the condition of the house. It turned out that the visitor was known to the tenant’s family, which increased their distress.
The landlord said she did not make any such comments. I note there is an email from the landlord on 2 December 2025 about a viewing in which the landlord says it did not matter what the property looked like.
I have the same concerns about this incident as with the claim about the landlord’s supervision of the cleaning. A social blunder or faux pas does not necessarily mean there is a breach of quiet enjoyment.
Before leaving the hearing room the tenant thanked the landlord and expressed regret for how matters had ended. The landlord apologised and said they had intended no offence. These acknowledgements were appropriate and more meaningful than a legal remedy. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The parties will bear their own costs.
Both parties requested name suppression. I exercise my discretion and grant suppression. The applications do not engage the public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422655 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422655 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions