What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425440 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The party] and [The party] the sum of $1,209.82 immediately, from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5425440?

Cleaning: $609.82 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Interior Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Total Claim: $1,209.82 awarded to landlord; Williams The Sum Of: $1,209.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425440?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13811547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425440 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The party] and [The party] the sum of $1,209.82 immediately, from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5425440?

Cleaning: $609.82 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting Interior Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Total Claim: $1,209.82 awarded to landlord; Williams The Sum Of: $1,209.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425440?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13811547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6C Grays Road, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425440 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425440. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Williams the sum of	$1,209.82	Williams the sum of
Repainting interior walls	$400.00	Repainting interior walls
Curtain cleaning	$609.82	Curtain cleaning
Bathroom cleaning	$50.00	Bathroom cleaning
Washing line replacement	$150.00	Washing line replacement
Total claim	$1,209.82	Total claim
Bond	$2,990.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425440. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Williams the sum of	$1,209.82	Williams the sum of
Repainting interior walls	$400.00	Repainting interior walls
Curtain cleaning	$609.82	Curtain cleaning
Bathroom cleaning	$50.00	Bathroom cleaning
Washing line replacement	$150.00	Washing line replacement
Total claim	$1,209.82	Total claim
Bond	$2,990.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The party] and [The party] the sum of $1,209.82 immediately, from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below: Item Cost Repainting interior walls $400.00 Curtain cleaning $609.82 Bathroom cleaning $50.00 Washing line replacement $150.00 Total claim $1,209.82
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,990.00 (BN-17357889) immediately apportioned as follows: [The party] and [The party]: $1,209.82 [The tenant/s]: $1,780.18
All other claims are dismissed. 5425440 2

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlords and tenant. The tenancy has ended but there is a dispute between the parties around liability for costs claimed by the landlords. The tenant seeks the full return of her bond, which as I noted at the hearing, will depend on the success the landlords have with their claims.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Porirua today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 30 September 2023. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy, but ultimately ended on or around 27 December 2025. So the Tenancy lasted for about two years, three months.
The landlords advised that the premises were brand-new at the start of this tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, possession was returned to the landlords, and the landlord’s position is that there was a range of damage to the property, which the landlord now seeks compensation for.
The tenant also filed an application, but the tenant is simply seeking the return of her bond, so as indicated above, that claim will depend on the success of the landlord’s compensation claims.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM94278.html?src=qs 5425440 3 a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: … [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Cleaning
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: …in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the 5425440 4 damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims presented in turn. Claim 1 – Repairs to interior walls
The landlords state that the premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy, Ms Mikaio was the first tenant. At the end of the tenancy, there was some damage to the walls such as chips and paint damage. However, there is also an issue where the tenant had cleaned the walls and that caused the top layer of the paint to come off, that was not all of the walls but some of them.
The landlord seeks costs for repainting the walls. The landlord is claiming costs of $1,600.00 based on quotations received from painters.
The tenant states that she has only cleaned the walls with Spray and Wipe. As far as the damage to the walls is concerned, that was simply fair wear and tear. Analysis
I have set out the relevant law that applies above, but in short, if damage is caused by fair wear and tear, it is the landlord’s responsibility, however if damage is caused during the tenancy from careless or intentional damage, then it is the tenant’s responsibility. 5425440 5
In this case, there are broadly two categories of damage to the walls: physical damage to the walls (the plasterboard), and also damage to paintwork from cleaning.
In terms of the physical damage to the plasterboard, having considered the photographs available, I consider that some of the damage could reasonably fall within the category of fair wear and tear. It is important to remember that houses like most things, do not last forever. People live in dwellings, and even careful living will cause marks or low-level damage. This sort of damage is fair wear and tear, which is in effect what the tenants pay rent for. However, when the damage is significant and beyond what could be expected from reasonable living in the premises, then that is not fair wear and tear.
In my assessment of the photographs and videos, the damage that is apparent in the photographs and videos the landlord has provided, fall in both categories. Some would be fair wear and tear, some would be beyond that.
Overall, I consider that some of the more significant damage would likely be careless damage. I do not consider any of the damage to the walls is likely to be intentional, but it was probably caused carelessly, which means the tenant is liable for the repair costs for the careless damage.
The other category of damage in this case is the damage to the paint. Both parties agree that this has been caused by cleaning the walls. Overall, I am not persuaded that this damage would be beyond fair wear and tear. Cleaning painted walls is nothing exceptional; painted surfaces should be robust enough to handle reasonable cleaning. In this case, the video the landlord provided has the appearance of the matte surface of the paint being wiped off. While that is unusual, there is no evidence to support that the tenant did anything unusual with the cleaning; the tenant’s evidence was that she used Spray and Wipe, I accept that.
I find that the damage was likely to be fair wear and tear, but if I were wrong in that, I would not have found that the tenant acted carelessly, the result must therefore be that she is not liable for the damage to the paint surfaces from cleaning.
What remains is that the tenant is liable for some of the wall repairs.
The landlord has obtained a quotation for repainting, which covers costs for work which I find the tenant would not be liable. I have determined that the 5425440 6 tenant should pay a contribution to the wall remediation cost of $400.00, which is a quarter of the claimed amount. Claim 2 – Curtain drycleaning
The landlord states that the curtains in two rooms were mouldy at the end of the tenancy. The curtains needed to be either replaced or dry-cleaned. The cost of dry cleaning the curtains was $609.82. The landlord considers that the dry cleaning was probably the more economical option compared with replacement.
The tenant said that the curtains were wiped down, but some spots were missed, the tenant was not sure how they should be cleaned otherwise. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that there was mould on the curtains at the end of the tenancy. The curtains were new, so this must have developed during the tenancy.
Taking into consideration the extent of the mould spots, and the length of the tenancy, I consider the curtains were not returned to the landlord reasonably clean. I also accept that drycleaning was a reasonable course of action to have the curtains cleaned. The result must be that the tenant is liable for the curtain cleaning cost. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $450.00 for cleaning the premises. The landlord states that the premises were very dirty at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant considers that the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy in a clean and tidy state. Analysis
As noted above, the obligation on the tenant is to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The premises do not need to be immaculate, only reasonably clean. Both parties have provided 5425440 7 me with photographs, the landlord has provided videos. As I indicated at the hearing, what these cases boil down to, is the adjudicator evaluating the evidence and deciding whether the premises are reasonably clean.
Having undertaken that exercise, I have determined that the bathroom was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy state, but the rest of the premises were. The bathroom drawers were dirty, and there was mould around the shower. But on the scheme of things, that is relatively minor. It would be reasonable to award a contribution toward the cleaning of $50.00 for those areas. Claim 4 – Carpet stain removal
the landlord states there were stains to the carpet in the master and second bedroom. The landlord has not treated this yet, but seeks the cost of self- treatment.
The tenant says she was not aware of the stains. Analysis
I accept there were some marks on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. They were reasonably minor, and we’re not to the extent that the landlord needed to address them before the next tenancy commenced. While this application is borderline, I decline to make the order. At this time the landlord has not incurred the cost to undertake stain removal, and of course, there is a new tenant in the premises, so any future work to the carpets would not necessarily be only to address the minor stains from this tenant. For that reason, I decline to order compensation for carpet cleaning. Claim 5 – Garden repair
the landlord states that he garden was in poor condition at the end of the tenancy. The lawn was new and a hose was left for the tenant to keep the grass watered. At the end of the tenancy the garden was in a poor condition. The landlord has claimed the cost of lawn seed and other chemicals.
The tenant states that there were areas of grass that never grew. 5425440 8 Analysis
The premises were new at the start of the tenancy, and the photographs provided show that a ready lawn was installed. At the end of the tenancy, I accept that the lawns were not in good condition. On balance, however, I am unable to apportion liability to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence available to show that the issues with the lawns are related to something the tenant should reasonably have done. There is no guarantee that ready lawns take, and even then, it is doubtful that a tenant would be responsible for providing the ongoing care necessary to establish a new lawn. Maintenance is the obligation of the landlord, and caring for a new lawn in the early days would probably fall within the maintenance category. In short, I find this claim has not been established. Claim 6 – Damaged clothes line
The landlord states that the washing line was bent. The landlord has claimed for a replacement line, the cheapest they could find.
The tenant said that she did not know the washing line was damaged, and they would use the dryer or a clothes horse. Analysis
The evidence is that a new washing line was provided at the start of the tenancy, and I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was bent when the tenancy was returned.
Because the washing line was new, it can be accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. A bent clothesline would not be fair wear and tear. The tenant has been unable to establish that the damage was not careless damage, it would be unlikely to be accidental, and probably not intentional. The landlord has claimed $150 to replace the washing line, that application seems reasonable, and is awarded in full. Claim 7 – Mirror replacement 5425440 9
The landlord states there is an ensuite in the master bedroom, and the mirror is moisture damaged. The landlord considers that this is condensation damage or similar from not using the extractor fan.
The tenant said she was not aware of the damage, and she would use the extractor fan and open the window in the bathroom. Analysis
I find the landlord has not established that this damage was beyond fair wear and tear. Bathrooms are wet areas, and fittings and fixtures that are used in bathrooms should be reasonably robust as far as moisture is concerned. I am not persuaded that the tenants have used the bathroom in any way that would be unusual, so as to link some careless action on the part of the tenant to the damage. This claim has not been established. Claim 8 – Laminate flooring damage
The landlord states that the laminate flooring in the hallway has been damaged, as if something has been dropped on it. The floor has not been repaired as yet, but the landlords seek repair costs of $487.09.
The tenant agrees there was a small mark in the floor which she considers to be fair wear and tear and believes it was probably one of the children. Analysis
I have reviewed the photographs and the video the landlord provided showing damage to the laminate flooring. I accept there are areas of damage to the floor, which would be consistent with something being dropped on the floor, and the damage around the door, possibly from scraping. But as for the mirror claim discussed above, floor coverings must be adequate to handle expected forces such as items being dropped or scraped on the floor. I am not persuaded that the damage would be beyond the fair wear and tear category, but if I were wrong in that, I do not consider it would represent careless damage. This claim has not been established.

NAME SUPPRESSION

5425440 10

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, so name suppression is not ordered.

FILING FEE

Each party must be responsible for their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425440 — Cleanliness at 6C Grays Road, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425440 — Cleanliness at 6C Grays Road, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions