Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5426191 — Property damage
Decided 14 Aug 2026 · Published 14 Aug 2026 · Application 5426191
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,678.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,678.32 [The tenant/s]: $921.68
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. There is a dispute over the bond.
- The landlord seeks compensation of $2,854,32 for cleaning and damage at the end of the tenancy. The tenant seeks a refund of her bond of $2,600.
- The parties had various discussions about the end of tenancy costs and the bond and provided evidence of those. I have decided the landlord’s claims based on the photos and invoices provided, along with the parties’ statements at the hearing.
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. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The landlord claims $554.32 for carpet cleaning. She says that it was a term of the tenancy agreement that the carpets be cleaned at the end of the tenancy and that this was a 5-year tenancy and so they would need to be cleaned.
- Section 11 of the Act says that any provision of any agreement that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless expressly permitted by the Act or the Tribunal is satisfied the restriction should be permitted.
- That does not prevent the landlord waiving any rights under the Act, but any purported waiver by the tenant is of no effect (see Section 11(2)).
- The obligation on the tenant is only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is no obligation under the Act for a tenant to clean the carpets. The length of the tenancy does not alter that. A landlord may decide to clean the carpets in between tenancies, but that does not mean that the tenant is responsible for it.
- However, there are circumstances where there are stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy, or the carpets are so dirty that the premises have not been left reasonably clean and tidy. In this instance, the photos show that there were a number of marks on the carpet, and in order to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the carpets needed to be cleaned.
- The tenant had agreed to cleaning the carpet, but the landlord told her not to. The landlord said that she wanted to leave the carpet cleaning until after she had attended to some painting. Although that might have suited the landlord, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy arises at the end of the tenancy, which was 28 November 2025. If the landlord wanted to defer that, then they should have agreed on an amount for carpet cleaning.
- The invoice for cleaning the carpet is dated 16 January 2026 and comes to $554.32, which is a high amount for carpet cleaning. I do not consider it reasonable that the tenant pays this. I consider a reasonable contribution is $300.
- The landlord provided photos which showed that the rangehood had not been cleaned. She submitted an invoice which included $135 for cleaning the rangehood. This was based on a rate of $120 an hour including GST, plus materials of $15.00. It is not reasonable that the tenant should pay $135 an hour for cleaning. I order $60 including GST for cleaning.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and 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) RTA.
- 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) RTA. 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) RTA.
- 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) RTA.
- 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.
- The landlord claimed for the following damage caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen cabinet that had been removed to make place for the fridge; b. Two cupboard doors below the sink that had become water logged; c. Missing trim off the top of a cupboard door; d. Painting the shelf in toilet; e. Painting an outside post that had scribbles on it; f. Plastering and painting ceiling where the tenants had placed heavy duty hooks g. Replacement of a roller blind. Kitchen cabinet
- The landlord claimed $385 for the first three items involving the kitchen cabinetry.
- The tenants removed a high kitchen cabinet to make room for their fridge. They put it in the outside shed. They said that following a storm when the door of the she came off, the cabinet got wet.
- The landlord says that the tenants did not ask permission to remove the cabinet and did not replace it at the end. The landlord could not put it back up because it was water damaged. She said that shed is a board and batten construction, not lined or insulated. It is for the lawnmower. She believes the moisture built up over time.
- I agree with the landlord. I find that the water damage was more likely than not caused by the cabinet being left in an outside shed for 5 years. The tenant is responsible for the replacement cabinet.
- The landlord said that the cabinet doors under the sink were waterlogged. The tenant has no idea how that happened. I am not satisfied that this damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is difficult to see that this is careless or intentional damage.
- A strip on the top of one of the doors was missing. The tenant said it came off and they tried to glue it back on. The landlord says there is no sign of glue residue.
- I find this is a matter of fair wear and tear. The tenant is not responsible for this repair.
- I order the tenant to pay $250 in total for replacement of the kitchen cabinet that was removed for the fridge.
- I have taken into account depreciation. The kitchen was not new at the start of the tenancy, but the landlord’s cost in replacement are modest. Toilet shelf
- The landlord claimed $135.00 for painting a shelf in the toilet cupboard which she thought had children’s scribble on it.
- The tenant agreed there were marks but said that they were made by the bottom of the bottles of cleaners and bleach.
- I consider this is fair wear and tear. The tenant should be able to use the shelf of a toilet cabinet for placing cleaners and breach. This claim is not established. Outside post
- The landlord claims $125 for sanding a post outside.
- The tenant accepts that her children had drawn on it with chalk.
- The landlord said that she had tried waterblasting, but the chalk remained.
- The invoice is for sanding and washing the four sides of the post: $5 for materials and $120 an hour for labour at half an hour. I accept that the post required sanding, but at half an hour for labour, the tradesperson’s invoice should be for $65.00, not $125 and so I order $65.00. I observe that $120 an hour for this type of work is very high. Ceiling
- The tenant had placed three heavy duty hooks in the ceiling. They each had two screws and there was sealant. When they hooks were removed, paint came away.
- I accept that the whole ceiling would need to have been painted to fix the isse. The landlord claimed $220 for this.
- 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- The landlord did not know when the ceiling had last been painted. However, the claim is modest and so I have taken no depreciation off the amount claimed. Blind
- The landlord claimed $167 for the purchase and installation of a roller blind.
- A roller blind had come down during the tenancy. The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for damage to the blind.
- The tenant says that it fell to pieces when she was unwinding it. A spring fell out. They left the blind there, and put up a replacement white wooden blind.
- I am not satisfied that the blind was damaged by the careless or intentional acts of the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Garage
- The landlord provided a quote for repair of a hole in the garage wall and one in a bedroom. The tenant accepted responsibility for the holes.
- The landlord said that the quote was accepted and the work undertaken and the bill paid. The amount is ordered.
- The landlord is asked to provide an updated invoice and/or receipt in future, rather than rely on a quote. Basin
- There is a brown residue in the bathroom basin. The tenant says that it is the fibrous lining of the basin that has seeped through after she soaked some woollens in the basin. She said that is no laundry tub.
- I find that the landlord has not established that the damage to the basin is fair wear and tear and dismiss the landlord’s claim. Other
- The landlord provided a copy of a mediated order as evidence that $120 an hour has been ordered in the past. I don’t agree, for the following reasons. a. The order makes no mention of the hourly rate; b. This is an order by consent and so there is no evidence of a contest; c. Although the mediated order is sealed by the Tribunal, it has not been the subject of a Tribunal hearing.
- I also note that mediated orders are confidential. They are not published on the TribunaI’s website, and the landlord should not have produced this order, particularly not without blanking out the other party’s name.
- In the present case, I have considered the overall reasonableness of the claim. The landlord may find that the Tribunal will not always order in her favour based on an hourly rate of $120 for odd jobs.
- Both parties have had some success and so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee for either party. There is an order for suppression of both their names.