What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426484 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 5426484?

Cleaning: $225.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $224.00 awarded to tenant; Painting: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Doors: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Remeditation: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426484?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426484 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 5426484?

Cleaning: $225.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $224.00 awarded to tenant; Painting: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Doors: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Remeditation: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426484?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426484 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426484 — net $2,488.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$800.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$225.40		Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$379.50		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$400.00		Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$490.00		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Replace two doors	$2,000.00		Repairs: Replace two doors
Repairs: Wall remeditation	$550.00		Repairs: Wall remeditation
Repairs: Painting	$540.00		Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears		$224.00	Rent arrears
Total award	$5,412.90	$224.00
Net award	$2,488.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,488.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,488.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 16 March 2026 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Ms [The tenant/s] tenant/s] appeared for both tenants. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 30 April 2022 with the fixed term expiring on 24 April 2023. Thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
The tenancy ended on 20 December 2025 after the landlord gave the tenants 90 days’ notice.
At the end of the tenancy the rent records reflect the tenant had over paid their rent by $224.00. This rent credit has incorporated to off-set a portion of the compensation ordered by the Tribunal in this decision. Condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs dated 22 March 2022.
The report records the property as being in a “reasonable tidy condition and cleaned”. General marks were recorded as being on the doors, walls, ceiling, floors, windows, power points and light switches throughout the property.
The photographs show mould on the bathroom ceiling and around the shower tray seal, some grime around the light switch in bedroom three, and a very small amount of rubbish had been left in the garden and council provided rubbish bin.
There was no obvious damage recorded.

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”).

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks cleaning costs totalling $1,127.00 after paying a contractor to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided records the contractor completed the following work: a) Vacuumed carpets and mopped floors. b) Removed cobwebs. c) Cleaning skirting boards. d) Cleaned light fittings. e) Cleaned the switch board. f) Kitchen cupboard cleaning – inside and out. g) Wiped down bench tops. h) Oven cleaning. i) Window cleaning. j) Shower, toilet and hand basin cleaning.
While the tenant accepted the property had not been returned cleaned she disputed the amount claimed saying the landlord had “buttered up” the price causing it to be excessive. Analysis and decision
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 or underneath 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.
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. The end of tenancy photographs show: a. There were obvious cobwebs in the property that needed to be removed. b. The window sills and wood work needed to be dusted and wiped down. c. The floors needed vacuuming and mopping. d. The doors needed wiping down. e. The walls around light switches and the light switches needed wiping down. f. There was additional mould on the bathroom ceiling that needed to be removed. g. The bathroom including the hand basin, toilet and shower needed cleaning. The shower dome needed dusting. h. The kitchen including the cupboards, sink, bench, oven, and cooktop needed cleaning.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to return the property in reasonably clean condition. However, based on the evidence provided the landlord has failed to prove the windows and switch board needed cleaning. The Tribunal deducts $327.00 for the cost of this additional work and finds the tenant liable to pay $800.00 cleaning costs.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $225.40 for carpet cleaning costs after paying a contractor to professionally clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed.
The Tribunal is satisfied the carpets were not returned clean at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant return the lawns and gardens in a clean and tidy condition?

The landlord seeks $379.00 after paying a contractor to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant did not dispute the costs and acknowledge the grass was over grown.
The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $1,127.00 after paying a contractor to remove rubbish and green waste at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant accepted that some rubbish was left behind at the property at the end of the tenancy but challenged the amount claimed. Analysis and decision
Based on the end of tenancy photographs I find the following rubbish was left behind by the tenants at the end of the tenancy: a. In one corner of the garden were at least five black sacks of rubbish, a box of rubbish and a small table. b. By the entrance the tenants had left behind one black sack and box of rubbish. c. A small amount of rubbish was left inside the property including empty drinks containers, a vacuum cleaner and two shopping bags, at least four candles in jars, toiletry wrappers, a dirty cloth, food in the microwave, plastic lids, and kitchen cleaning items.
I am also satisfied that green waste needed to be dumped after the lawns and gardens were tidied.
The invoice for rubbish removal costs fails to particularise the hourly rate and number of hours of labour required to remove the waste, the volume of rubbish removed and the dump fee.
The Tribunal routinely delas with claims for rubbish removal costs. Based on the photographs I am not satisfied the amount claimed is reasonable. The landlord could have arranged for a small skip bin, because that is all that was required, to remove and dump the remaining rubbish. I accept that there would be an additional labour charge. Taking these matters into consideration I find that it is reasonable to order $400.00 for rubbish removal costs.

Did the tenant return the keys?

The landlord seeks $490.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant challenged the amount claimed saying the cost was “ridiculous”. The tenant said that during the tenancy the locks were changed and one of the supplied keys was retuned. The tenant acknowledged misplacing the other keys. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied the tenant failed to return all of the keys, having lost two, and the locks needed to be changed to secure the property.
The tenants are liable for the cost of the lock change and I find the amount claimed reasonable in the circumstances.

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.
The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused during the tenancy: a. Replacement of two broken doors - $2,000.00 b. Repair of wall damage - $550.00 c. Painting over wall damage repairs and scribble marks - $1,800.00 An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant does not dispute that they damaged two doors and said it occurred while moving. With regards to the wall damage, the tenant did not dispute causing the holes but challenged the cost, stating the amount claimed was excessive. Analysis and decision
In this case I accept the doors and walls were damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I find the damage was caused carelessly which limits the tenants liability to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
The tenancy agreement records the property is insured but fails to disclose the excess. Four weeks rent totals $2,900.00. The individual cost of each of the repairs does not exceed four weeks rent.
Compensation for broken doors – the Tribunal heard the doors that were broken were the original solid wood doors with character features. The could not be repaired. The landlord opted to replace the damaged doors with the cheapest wooden doors available. The Tribunal is satisfied the material and labour costs were reasonable in the circumstance and the amount claimed is ordered.
Compensation for wall damage – the walls in bedrooms two and three were damaged. The photographs show the wall in bedroom three had a large hole that could not be patched and needed new plaster board. A wall in bedroom two had two smaller holes and another wall had multiple gouge marks. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is liable for the repair costs and the finds the amount claimed reasonable.
Compensation for painting costs - the tenant accepted that some painting was required but asked for depreciation to be applied. The landlord confirmed that the property was most recently painted in 2018. I am satisfied the tenant is liable for painting costs but must consider betterment and depreciation. Paint in residential dwellings is generally considered to last between 5 and 10 years. At the end of the tenancy the paint in the property was seven years old. On that basis the Tribunal orders $540.00 for painting costs. Other matters
The bond is refunded in full to the landlord to off-set a portion of the compensation ordered.
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression.
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.
The tenant has not been substantially successful and the Tribunal declines to order name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426484 — net $2,488.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$800.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$225.40		Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$379.50		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$400.00		Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$490.00		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Replace two doors	$2,000.00		Repairs: Replace two doors
Repairs: Wall remeditation	$550.00		Repairs: Wall remeditation
Repairs: Painting	$540.00		Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears		$224.00	Rent arrears
Total award	$5,412.90	$224.00
Net award	$2,488.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,488.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,488.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 16 March 2026 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Ms [The tenant/s] tenant/s] appeared for both tenants. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 30 April 2022 with the fixed term expiring on 24 April 2023. Thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
The tenancy ended on 20 December 2025 after the landlord gave the tenants 90 days’ notice.
At the end of the tenancy the rent records reflect the tenant had over paid their rent by $224.00. This rent credit has incorporated to off-set a portion of the compensation ordered by the Tribunal in this decision. Condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs dated 22 March 2022.
The report records the property as being in a “reasonable tidy condition and cleaned”. General marks were recorded as being on the doors, walls, ceiling, floors, windows, power points and light switches throughout the property.
The photographs show mould on the bathroom ceiling and around the shower tray seal, some grime around the light switch in bedroom three, and a very small amount of rubbish had been left in the garden and council provided rubbish bin.
There was no obvious damage recorded.

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”).

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks cleaning costs totalling $1,127.00 after paying a contractor to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided records the contractor completed the following work: a) Vacuumed carpets and mopped floors. b) Removed cobwebs. c) Cleaning skirting boards. d) Cleaned light fittings. e) Cleaned the switch board. f) Kitchen cupboard cleaning – inside and out. g) Wiped down bench tops. h) Oven cleaning. i) Window cleaning. j) Shower, toilet and hand basin cleaning.
While the tenant accepted the property had not been returned cleaned she disputed the amount claimed saying the landlord had “buttered up” the price causing it to be excessive. Analysis and decision
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 or underneath 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.
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. The end of tenancy photographs show: a. There were obvious cobwebs in the property that needed to be removed. b. The window sills and wood work needed to be dusted and wiped down. c. The floors needed vacuuming and mopping. d. The doors needed wiping down. e. The walls around light switches and the light switches needed wiping down. f. There was additional mould on the bathroom ceiling that needed to be removed. g. The bathroom including the hand basin, toilet and shower needed cleaning. The shower dome needed dusting. h. The kitchen including the cupboards, sink, bench, oven, and cooktop needed cleaning.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to return the property in reasonably clean condition. However, based on the evidence provided the landlord has failed to prove the windows and switch board needed cleaning. The Tribunal deducts $327.00 for the cost of this additional work and finds the tenant liable to pay $800.00 cleaning costs.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $225.40 for carpet cleaning costs after paying a contractor to professionally clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed.
The Tribunal is satisfied the carpets were not returned clean at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant return the lawns and gardens in a clean and tidy condition?

The landlord seeks $379.00 after paying a contractor to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant did not dispute the costs and acknowledge the grass was over grown.
The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $1,127.00 after paying a contractor to remove rubbish and green waste at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant accepted that some rubbish was left behind at the property at the end of the tenancy but challenged the amount claimed. Analysis and decision
Based on the end of tenancy photographs I find the following rubbish was left behind by the tenants at the end of the tenancy: a. In one corner of the garden were at least five black sacks of rubbish, a box of rubbish and a small table. b. By the entrance the tenants had left behind one black sack and box of rubbish. c. A small amount of rubbish was left inside the property including empty drinks containers, a vacuum cleaner and two shopping bags, at least four candles in jars, toiletry wrappers, a dirty cloth, food in the microwave, plastic lids, and kitchen cleaning items.
I am also satisfied that green waste needed to be dumped after the lawns and gardens were tidied.
The invoice for rubbish removal costs fails to particularise the hourly rate and number of hours of labour required to remove the waste, the volume of rubbish removed and the dump fee.
The Tribunal routinely delas with claims for rubbish removal costs. Based on the photographs I am not satisfied the amount claimed is reasonable. The landlord could have arranged for a small skip bin, because that is all that was required, to remove and dump the remaining rubbish. I accept that there would be an additional labour charge. Taking these matters into consideration I find that it is reasonable to order $400.00 for rubbish removal costs.

Did the tenant return the keys?

The landlord seeks $490.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant challenged the amount claimed saying the cost was “ridiculous”. The tenant said that during the tenancy the locks were changed and one of the supplied keys was retuned. The tenant acknowledged misplacing the other keys. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied the tenant failed to return all of the keys, having lost two, and the locks needed to be changed to secure the property.
The tenants are liable for the cost of the lock change and I find the amount claimed reasonable in the circumstances.

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.
The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused during the tenancy: a. Replacement of two broken doors - $2,000.00 b. Repair of wall damage - $550.00 c. Painting over wall damage repairs and scribble marks - $1,800.00 An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenant does not dispute that they damaged two doors and said it occurred while moving. With regards to the wall damage, the tenant did not dispute causing the holes but challenged the cost, stating the amount claimed was excessive. Analysis and decision
In this case I accept the doors and walls were damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I find the damage was caused carelessly which limits the tenants liability to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
The tenancy agreement records the property is insured but fails to disclose the excess. Four weeks rent totals $2,900.00. The individual cost of each of the repairs does not exceed four weeks rent.
Compensation for broken doors – the Tribunal heard the doors that were broken were the original solid wood doors with character features. The could not be repaired. The landlord opted to replace the damaged doors with the cheapest wooden doors available. The Tribunal is satisfied the material and labour costs were reasonable in the circumstance and the amount claimed is ordered.
Compensation for wall damage – the walls in bedrooms two and three were damaged. The photographs show the wall in bedroom three had a large hole that could not be patched and needed new plaster board. A wall in bedroom two had two smaller holes and another wall had multiple gouge marks. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is liable for the repair costs and the finds the amount claimed reasonable.
Compensation for painting costs - the tenant accepted that some painting was required but asked for depreciation to be applied. The landlord confirmed that the property was most recently painted in 2018. I am satisfied the tenant is liable for painting costs but must consider betterment and depreciation. Paint in residential dwellings is generally considered to last between 5 and 10 years. At the end of the tenancy the paint in the property was seven years old. On that basis the Tribunal orders $540.00 for painting costs. Other matters
The bond is refunded in full to the landlord to off-set a portion of the compensation ordered.
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression.
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.
The tenant has not been substantially successful and the Tribunal declines to order name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426484 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426484 — Property damage

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 leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return the lawns and gardens in a clean and tidy condition?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant return the keys?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return the lawns and gardens in a clean and tidy condition?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant return the keys?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.