How much money was awarded in case 5438620?

The reconciled net award was $175.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438620?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13556157-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5438620?

The reconciled net award was $175.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438620?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13556157-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438620 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438620 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $175.00 from the bond for repairs to the bedroom wall.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $175.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,265.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants rented a two-bedroom house from the landlord from September 2024 until January 2026.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the interior of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report with photographs dated 28 January 2026 and an invoice from WD’s Property Maintenance Ltd. The landlord claimed that the premises were not left reasonably clean and provided close-up photographs including some small marks on walls and ceilings, dust on some skirting boards, small spots in the toilet bowl, streaks on the shower glass and mirror and marks on the kitchen extractor fan.
The tenant disputed the claims and claimed that the premises were returned in similar or better condition than they were provided at the beginning. The tenant stated that the lawns were mowed a week before the tenancy ended, they vacated on 24 January 2026, cleaned the premises on 25 January 2026 and returned the premises on the termination date of 26 January 2026. The tenant pointed out that the exit inspection report was done on 28 January 2026 and the lawns would have grown further by then.
I have heard the evidence and looked at photographs provided by both parties. I have also looked through the remainder of the exit inspection photographs and the invoices.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The exit inspection report photographs present an empty reasonably clean and tidy premises. (b)It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. (c) I accept that the close-up photographs reveal some areas with small spots and dust marks that were not immaculate but find that overall the premises were cleaned by the tenant and left reasonably clean and tidy. (d)The invoice for the lawns is dated one month after the tenancy ended. The exit photographs were taken two days after the tenancy ended and were taken in summer when lawns grow faster. The lawns look reasonably tidy and not a lot different to the entry photograph provided by the tenant. I am not satisfied the landlord has proved that the lawns were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Damage to the paintwork on the bedroom wall. The landlord provided photographs showing marks to the wall caused by the tenant’s bed. The marks were not visible until the bed was removed and the tenant accepts they were caused by their bed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (b)The amount ordered is proved. The landlord sought the sum of $175.00 for the repair and provided an invoice. The landlord confirmed that the amount sought is for repair of the damage only. The amount is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. Filing fee/Suppression
Because both parties have had some success with their claims I find that neither party should reimburse the other’s filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the evidence of both parties that there had been a good landlord tenant relationship and the relatively small amount of the claim the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweighs any public interest in their identities being published and orders suppression of all identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $175.00 from the bond for repairs to the bedroom wall.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $175.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,265.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants rented a two-bedroom house from the landlord from September 2024 until January 2026.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the interior of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord provided an exit inspection report with photographs dated 28 January 2026 and an invoice from WD’s Property Maintenance Ltd. The landlord claimed that the premises were not left reasonably clean and provided close-up photographs including some small marks on walls and ceilings, dust on some skirting boards, small spots in the toilet bowl, streaks on the shower glass and mirror and marks on the kitchen extractor fan.

The tenant disputed the claims and claimed that the premises were returned in similar or better condition than they were provided at the beginning. The tenant stated that the lawns were mowed a week before the tenancy ended, they vacated on 24 January 2026, cleaned the premises on 25 January 2026 and returned the premises on the termination date of 26 January 2026. The tenant pointed out that the exit inspection report was done on 28 January 2026 and the lawns would have grown further by then.

I have heard the evidence and looked at photographs provided by both parties. I have also looked through the remainder of the exit inspection photographs and the invoices.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The exit inspection report photographs present an empty reasonably clean and tidy premises. (b)It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. (c) I accept that the close-up photographs reveal some areas with small spots and dust marks that were not immaculate but find that overall the premises were cleaned by the tenant and left reasonably clean and tidy. (d)The invoice for the lawns is dated one month after the tenancy ended. The exit photographs were taken two days after the tenancy ended and were taken in summer when lawns grow faster. The lawns look reasonably tidy and not a lot different to the entry photograph provided by the tenant. I am not satisfied the landlord has proved that the lawns were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Damage to the paintwork on the bedroom wall. The landlord provided photographs showing marks to the wall caused by the tenant’s bed. The marks were not visible until the bed was removed and the tenant accepts they were caused by their bed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (b)The amount ordered is proved. The landlord sought the sum of $175.00 for the repair and provided an invoice. The landlord confirmed that the amount sought is for repair of the damage only. The amount is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. Filing fee/Suppression

Because both parties have had some success with their claims I find that neither party should reimburse the other’s filing fee.

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the evidence of both parties that there had been a good landlord tenant relationship and the relatively small amount of the claim the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweighs any public interest in their identities being published and orders suppression of all identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438620 — Property damage

Award balance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438620 — Property damage

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions