What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425989?

The tribunal order states: Juliana Moka to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Richard Lyon

How much money was awarded in case 5425989?

Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Plus Reasonable Costs Less Extr…: $1,434.52 awarded to landlord; Fill Holes And Repaint: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $92.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425989?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13634350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425989?

The tribunal order states: Juliana Moka to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Richard Lyon

How much money was awarded in case 5425989?

Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Plus Reasonable Costs Less Extr…: $1,434.52 awarded to landlord; Fill Holes And Repaint: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $92.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425989?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13634350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10B Totara Place, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425989 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425989 — net $1,979.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent plus reasonable costs less extra rent received (para 11	$1,434.52	Rent plus reasonable costs less extra rent received (para 11
Cleaning	$25.00	Cleaning
Water rates	$92.40	Water rates
Repairs: fill holes and repaint	$400.00	Repairs: fill holes and repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,979.92
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,979.92

Order

Juliana Moka to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Richard Lyon And Brooke Gibson $1,979.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-00098355) immediately apportioned as follows: Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Richard Lyon And Brooke Gibson: $1,979.92 Juliana Moka: $100.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today. Background
The tenant had a one-year fixed term tenancy beginning on the 17 April 2025 and due to end on the 16 April 2026. The tenant lived in the home which is only 2-3 years old with her children.
In December 2025 the tenant informed her landlord that she had found another place to live and wanted to end her tenancy. The landlord told her that she had a fixed term, and she would remain liable for the rent until new tenants were found and would have to pay the landlord’s reasonable costs of reletting. The landlord also indicated that due to the time of the year that there might be some delay in getting new tenants.
The tenant moved out of the property on or about the 2 January 2026 and handed back the keys the following day. The property was re-tenanted quickly, but the new tenants had to give notice to end their existing tenancy. The new tenancy began on the 21 January. The landlord confirmed that the new tenants were paying an extra $30 per week in rent.
The landlord’s claims are: a. Rent to the 20 January 2026- $1485.71 b. Water of $92.40 c. Repairs to the holes in the walls (tv bracket and another set of holes) $690.00 d. Repair to a broken skirting board $100. e. Costs of advertising and getting new tenants: f. End of tenancy clean $35.00 g. Final Inspection fee $57.50 h. The filing fee How much is owed for rent and for ending the tenancy early.
Tenants in fixed term tenancies can only end those tenancies early by order of the Tribunal or agreement with the landlord. Tenants are usually liable for rent until new tenants are found and the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord of reletting the property.
The tenant says that she gave the landlord plenty of time to advertise the property before she left, so that she would not incur two lots of rent. She says that the landlord increased the rent by $30.00 per week and this was a significant increase for a Kaikohe property and would have limited the number of applicants that could apply for the property. She says that in the property that she went into she was told that there were many applicants and therefore she believes that it was the rental price that was off putting to potential tenants.
The landlord says that they started readvertising the property as soon as they knew the tenant’s definite plans and that they found suitable tenants within a week of the tenant leaving, but those tenants needed to give notice.
I consider that tenant is liable for rent up until the 20 January, as well as the costs of advertising and the landlord’s administration fee, which consider reasonable. I do not consider that the landlord delayed in advertising the proety or that there is evidence that suitable tenants could have been found any earlier than they were. However, I consider that I must take into account the benefit of the extra rent per week of $30 that the landlord received from the new tenants, which they would not have got if the tenant had remained in her fixed term tenancy (this is because the landlord could not have put up the rent until the end of the fixed erm tenancy).
I also do not consider that the final inspection is a cost that should be borne by the tenants as breaking the fixed term tenancy, this is a normal cost incurred by the landlord at the end of any tenancy and would have been incurred whenever this tenancy ended.
The amount owed for rent until the end of the tenancy is $1485.71 + costs of reletting $317.38 (admin fee $172.50 and trade me fee of $144.98) =$1803.09 less the extra rent paid (from 21 January to 16 April = 12 weeks and 2 days) - $368.57 = a total amount payable by the tenant to the landlord of $1434.52.
The amount of $1434.52 is awarded to the landlord. Water rates.
The landlord provided a ledger that proved the amount claimed and that is awarded.

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy (see s40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). Reasonably clean and tidy does not mean spotless or motel or hotel standard.
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
The landlord agrees that the tenant left most of the property reasonably clean and tidy but says that the tenant did not clean the shower properly. The landlord has submitted photographs of the shower glass taken at the final inspection on the 4 January which shows that the shower glass needs further cleaning to bring it up to a reasonable standard.
The landlord seeks $35.00 for cleaning, she says that the cleaner that they use has a minimum one-hour charge and that includes travel etc.
I do not consider that the tenant is liable for a total of a one-hour cost for cleaning the shower, the landlord has an obligation to mitigate its loss (see s49 RTA) and I do not consider that the landlord has mitigated its loss here. On the other hand, the tenant did not leave the shower in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and the hourly rate of the cleaner is very reasonable compared to many claims the tribunal sees daily for cleaning. I therefore award the landlord $25.00 for the cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The 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.
Fair wear and tear is the gradual decline in the property due to everyday ordinary and reasonable use.
In the District Court decision of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC NorthShore, TT 216/94, 30 January 1996, pages 26, 27, His Honour Judge Thorburn addressed the issue of fair wear and tear, and who has the burden of proving what or how the damage was caused. Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition. Fair wear and tear has for decades been addressed. In Taylor v Webb (1937) 2 KB (CA) 283 Scott LJ at page 302 described it in relation to a landlord/tenant relationship as: " ... That brought about by the tenant, and other persons present in or on the premises with the consent of the tenant, either unintentionally or as a normal incident of a tenant's occupation in the course of the 'fair' (or 'reasonable') use of the premises for any of the purposes for which they were let." At page 303 he said further: " ... , the tenant's user and its effect, is too plain to need argument, and is well recognised in the decided cases." The appellant in this case has significantly fallen into a misconception that a landlord's claim can easily succeed by simply proving the existence of damage during the tenancy and having the tenant therefore burdened with all of the responsibility to make the running in terms of evidence. While s 40 achieves that if carelessness or intentional damage are to be excluded as the cause, if a tenant cannot specifically explain the damage that failure does not necessarily equivocate to carelessness or intentional damage. The skirting board.
At the final inspection the landlord noticed that the skirting board behind the door leading outside from the kitchen had pulled away from the wall and was cracked.
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the skirting board sometime between the penultimate inspection in October 2025 and the end of the tenancy, because it was not damaged in the photographs of October 2025. The landlord says that the skirting board would not have broken like this for any other reason than been damaged carelessly of intentionally by something being dropped on the skirting board or someone standing on it. They say that a downward force has caused the damage.
The tenant says that she did not cause the damage and had not even noticed that the skirting board was damaged until the landlord showed her. She says that she believes that the skirting board has become damaged as a result of the wind blowing the door hard against the door stop on the skirting board.
I do not know what has caused the damage, both explanations are plausible, and I have no evidence that shows me that one is more probable than the other.
As I cannot be satisfied how or what caused the damage, then I cannot say with any probability of the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant, and therefore the landlord’s claim for repair of the skirting board fails. Wall damage and paint.
The landlord also claimed $690 for repairs to nail holes in two walls and repainting of the walls.
The tenant accepted that she put the nail holes in the walls but said that the amount charged for painting etc was excessive. She says that there was no need to repaint the two walls, that this could have simply been filled and painted over.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of repairing the holes in the walls. The holes in the lounge are from a tv bracket, and tenants are required to repair the wall when they take off a tv bracket. Likewise, they are also liable when they make holes in the walls.
Whilst I consider that the cost of repairing the walls to be on the high side for similar invoices the tribunal sees routinely, I do not consider it excessive for the work that has been done.
However, I do not award the total invoice back to the landlord, this is because by painting the walls the landlord has been left in a better position than they otherwise were. This is because the wall paint was already 2-3 years old.
Walls in the lounge in a residential tenancy would be expected to be painted approximately every 8 years, especially when there are families with young children living in the property.
I therefore award the landlord the sum of $400 for these repairs which I consider reasonable for the work that has been done.
I also note that if the tenant thought that she could have got these repairs done before the end of the tenancy at her own cost. The filing fee.
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425989 — net $1,979.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent plus reasonable costs less extra rent received (para 11	$1,434.52	Rent plus reasonable costs less extra rent received (para 11
Cleaning	$25.00	Cleaning
Water rates	$92.40	Water rates
Repairs: fill holes and repaint	$400.00	Repairs: fill holes and repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,979.92
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,979.92

Order

Juliana Moka to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Richard Lyon And Brooke Gibson $1,979.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-00098355) immediately apportioned as follows: Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Richard Lyon And Brooke Gibson: $1,979.92 Juliana Moka: $100.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today. Background
The tenant had a one-year fixed term tenancy beginning on the 17 April 2025 and due to end on the 16 April 2026. The tenant lived in the home which is only 2-3 years old with her children.
In December 2025 the tenant informed her landlord that she had found another place to live and wanted to end her tenancy. The landlord told her that she had a fixed term, and she would remain liable for the rent until new tenants were found and would have to pay the landlord’s reasonable costs of reletting. The landlord also indicated that due to the time of the year that there might be some delay in getting new tenants.
The tenant moved out of the property on or about the 2 January 2026 and handed back the keys the following day. The property was re-tenanted quickly, but the new tenants had to give notice to end their existing tenancy. The new tenancy began on the 21 January. The landlord confirmed that the new tenants were paying an extra $30 per week in rent.
The landlord’s claims are: a. Rent to the 20 January 2026- $1485.71 b. Water of $92.40 c. Repairs to the holes in the walls (tv bracket and another set of holes) $690.00 d. Repair to a broken skirting board $100. e. Costs of advertising and getting new tenants: f. End of tenancy clean $35.00 g. Final Inspection fee $57.50 h. The filing fee How much is owed for rent and for ending the tenancy early.
Tenants in fixed term tenancies can only end those tenancies early by order of the Tribunal or agreement with the landlord. Tenants are usually liable for rent until new tenants are found and the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord of reletting the property.
The tenant says that she gave the landlord plenty of time to advertise the property before she left, so that she would not incur two lots of rent. She says that the landlord increased the rent by $30.00 per week and this was a significant increase for a Kaikohe property and would have limited the number of applicants that could apply for the property. She says that in the property that she went into she was told that there were many applicants and therefore she believes that it was the rental price that was off putting to potential tenants.
The landlord says that they started readvertising the property as soon as they knew the tenant’s definite plans and that they found suitable tenants within a week of the tenant leaving, but those tenants needed to give notice.
I consider that tenant is liable for rent up until the 20 January, as well as the costs of advertising and the landlord’s administration fee, which consider reasonable. I do not consider that the landlord delayed in advertising the proety or that there is evidence that suitable tenants could have been found any earlier than they were. However, I consider that I must take into account the benefit of the extra rent per week of $30 that the landlord received from the new tenants, which they would not have got if the tenant had remained in her fixed term tenancy (this is because the landlord could not have put up the rent until the end of the fixed erm tenancy).
I also do not consider that the final inspection is a cost that should be borne by the tenants as breaking the fixed term tenancy, this is a normal cost incurred by the landlord at the end of any tenancy and would have been incurred whenever this tenancy ended.
The amount owed for rent until the end of the tenancy is $1485.71 + costs of reletting $317.38 (admin fee $172.50 and trade me fee of $144.98) =$1803.09 less the extra rent paid (from 21 January to 16 April = 12 weeks and 2 days) - $368.57 = a total amount payable by the tenant to the landlord of $1434.52.
The amount of $1434.52 is awarded to the landlord. Water rates.
The landlord provided a ledger that proved the amount claimed and that is awarded.

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy (see s40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). Reasonably clean and tidy does not mean spotless or motel or hotel standard.
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
The landlord agrees that the tenant left most of the property reasonably clean and tidy but says that the tenant did not clean the shower properly. The landlord has submitted photographs of the shower glass taken at the final inspection on the 4 January which shows that the shower glass needs further cleaning to bring it up to a reasonable standard.
The landlord seeks $35.00 for cleaning, she says that the cleaner that they use has a minimum one-hour charge and that includes travel etc.
I do not consider that the tenant is liable for a total of a one-hour cost for cleaning the shower, the landlord has an obligation to mitigate its loss (see s49 RTA) and I do not consider that the landlord has mitigated its loss here. On the other hand, the tenant did not leave the shower in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and the hourly rate of the cleaner is very reasonable compared to many claims the tribunal sees daily for cleaning. I therefore award the landlord $25.00 for the cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The 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.
Fair wear and tear is the gradual decline in the property due to everyday ordinary and reasonable use.
In the District Court decision of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC NorthShore, TT 216/94, 30 January 1996, pages 26, 27, His Honour Judge Thorburn addressed the issue of fair wear and tear, and who has the burden of proving what or how the damage was caused. Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition. Fair wear and tear has for decades been addressed. In Taylor v Webb (1937) 2 KB (CA) 283 Scott LJ at page 302 described it in relation to a landlord/tenant relationship as: " ... That brought about by the tenant, and other persons present in or on the premises with the consent of the tenant, either unintentionally or as a normal incident of a tenant's occupation in the course of the 'fair' (or 'reasonable') use of the premises for any of the purposes for which they were let." At page 303 he said further: " ... , the tenant's user and its effect, is too plain to need argument, and is well recognised in the decided cases." The appellant in this case has significantly fallen into a misconception that a landlord's claim can easily succeed by simply proving the existence of damage during the tenancy and having the tenant therefore burdened with all of the responsibility to make the running in terms of evidence. While s 40 achieves that if carelessness or intentional damage are to be excluded as the cause, if a tenant cannot specifically explain the damage that failure does not necessarily equivocate to carelessness or intentional damage. The skirting board.
At the final inspection the landlord noticed that the skirting board behind the door leading outside from the kitchen had pulled away from the wall and was cracked.
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the skirting board sometime between the penultimate inspection in October 2025 and the end of the tenancy, because it was not damaged in the photographs of October 2025. The landlord says that the skirting board would not have broken like this for any other reason than been damaged carelessly of intentionally by something being dropped on the skirting board or someone standing on it. They say that a downward force has caused the damage.
The tenant says that she did not cause the damage and had not even noticed that the skirting board was damaged until the landlord showed her. She says that she believes that the skirting board has become damaged as a result of the wind blowing the door hard against the door stop on the skirting board.
I do not know what has caused the damage, both explanations are plausible, and I have no evidence that shows me that one is more probable than the other.
As I cannot be satisfied how or what caused the damage, then I cannot say with any probability of the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant, and therefore the landlord’s claim for repair of the skirting board fails. Wall damage and paint.
The landlord also claimed $690 for repairs to nail holes in two walls and repainting of the walls.
The tenant accepted that she put the nail holes in the walls but said that the amount charged for painting etc was excessive. She says that there was no need to repaint the two walls, that this could have simply been filled and painted over.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of repairing the holes in the walls. The holes in the lounge are from a tv bracket, and tenants are required to repair the wall when they take off a tv bracket. Likewise, they are also liable when they make holes in the walls.
Whilst I consider that the cost of repairing the walls to be on the high side for similar invoices the tribunal sees routinely, I do not consider it excessive for the work that has been done.
However, I do not award the total invoice back to the landlord, this is because by painting the walls the landlord has been left in a better position than they otherwise were. This is because the wall paint was already 2-3 years old.
Walls in the lounge in a residential tenancy would be expected to be painted approximately every 8 years, especially when there are families with young children living in the property.
I therefore award the landlord the sum of $400 for these repairs which I consider reasonable for the work that has been done.
I also note that if the tenant thought that she could have got these repairs done before the end of the tenancy at her own cost. The filing fee.
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425989 — Property damage at 10B Totara Place, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425989 — Property damage at 10B Totara Place, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions