What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442283 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 5442283?

Property Damage: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.50 awarded to landlord; Reconnecting Ceiling Light Wire And…: $185.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442283?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13853641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442283 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 5442283?

Property Damage: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.50 awarded to landlord; Reconnecting Ceiling Light Wire And…: $185.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442283?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442283?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13853641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442283 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442283 — net $2,985.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage to roof and leak damage (insurance excess of	$2,300.00	Damage to roof and leak damage (insurance excess of
Contribution to dishwasher replacement including installation (by consent	$300.00	Contribution to dishwasher replacement including installation (by consent
Repairs to internal glass doors	$1,000.50	Repairs to internal glass doors
Reconnecting ceiling light wire and securing the light	$185.00	Reconnecting ceiling light wire and securing the light
Net award	$2,985.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,985.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and the tenancy address.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Rempstone Property Management Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone Property Management Limited $2,985.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This tenancy began on 2 December 2024 and ended on 1 December 2025. The tenancy property operates as student flat. There were six tenants. The tenants came to know of the tenancy property through friends who had been tenants at the property the previous year.
The rent was $1,200 per week. The tenants paid a bond of $4,800.
The landlord filed a claim on 11 February 2026 seeking compensation from the tenants as follows:
I was told that the tenants submitted a one-party claim for refund of the bond and that $4,000 was released to the tenants.
The balance of the bond held is $800.

Did the tenants 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 said that the tenants did not clean properly and so additional “top- up” cleaning was required.
The landlord produced outgoing inspection reports and an invoice in the amount of $529.00 for cleaning which states “House Cleanings (Top up Shower box and toilets. All skirting board, cupboards, surface, windowsills. Kitchen, Oven, obvious wall marks)”.
The tenants said that the tenancy property was not clean and tidy when they moved in and produced correspondence with the landlord in this regard. They produced side by side photos of the two showers from the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos, showing very little difference in cleanliness. They acknowledged leaving an oven tray in the oven but say that other than that they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
It is common for landlords to do additional cleaning in between tenancies, particularly where there are large number of tenants as in this case.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that the oven could have been cleaned better (it was replaced during the tenancy so was new) and some additional dusting was likely required. However tenants do not need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy in every respect, they just need to leave it reasonably clean and tidy overall.
The additional cleaning required is the sort of additional cleaning that a landlord could expect to do between tenancies, and particularly in a tenancy of this nature, where there are a large number of tenants.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proven and is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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. Curtains
The landlord said that the curtains were damaged and had come off their tracks. The landlord produced ingoing and outgoing photos of the curtains.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $143.75 for installing curtains and $71.90 for materials and hooks.
The tenants said that the curtains were broken when they moved in, and although they raised the broken curtains with the landlord in the first week of the tenancy, they were never repaired. The landlord produced correspondence with the landlord about the curtains.
The landlord said that the curtains would have been repaired at the same time as various other maintenance items were completed at the start of the tenancy, but did not produce an invoice for curtain repair or other evidence.
Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Ceiling light
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy a chandelier ceiling light had come away from the ceiling and needed to be repaired and reconnected.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $185.00 for repairing the damage.
The tenants accepted that they caused the damage but said that they were suspicious of the invoice because it was issued by a property maintenance company and not a registered electrician.
The landlord said that they regularly use the same property maintenance company, who engages all sorts of qualified tradespeople as required, which is why the invoice was not issued by the electrician directly.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenants and that the landlord’s invoice is genuine and reasonable. It is common for property maintenance businesses to undertake a wide variety of maintenance work, engaging qualified tradespeople as necessary. It is not necessary for those tradespeople to invoice the landlord directly.
This claim is proved. Dishwasher replacement
The dishwasher was damaged during the tenancy and the landlord organised for a replacement.
The landlord said that they sought a contribution to the cost of the replacement dishwasher and installation in the amount of $300.
The tenants accepted liability and accepted the contribution of $300. Glass door
The landlord said that that one of the glass doors in the lounge was broken during the tenancy and produced a photos showing a large star shaped crack, which extends right across the bottom part of the window.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $2,438.00 for a various items such as cleaning glass slag on lawn and driveway, washing driveway, various repairs and plastering including a replacing a glass door.
The tenants accepted that they had accidentally broken the glass door, but said that they were not responsible for glass in the garden/driveway or additional damage, and when they visited the property in March 2026 most of the work had not been done and the glass door had not been replaced. They produced photos.
The landlord said that the other work had been done, but that the glass was an unusual type and was still being ordered.
The replacement cost of the glass (including GST) as itemised in the invoice, is $1,000.50. I accept that the landlord has suffered loss and will replace the door as soon as the glass is available.
I am not however satisfied that the landlord has proved the additional damage, so dismiss the balance of this invoice. Damage to roof
The landlord said the tenants had climbed onto the roof, which is easily accessible, and damaged roofing tiles, which then caused significant leaking, which ultimately led to the tenants having to move out (arranged and paid for by the landlord) while repairs were done.
The landlord said that they claimed against their insurance policy but their insurer applied two excesses in the amount of $1,150 each when they discovered that multiple tiles were cracked all across the roof as though they had been walked on and that there were beer bottles in the guttering. One excess was applied for repairing the tiles, and another for the damage caused by the leak. Both excesses were applied on the basis of “malicious damage”.
The landlord produced photos of the roof taken following repairs that were undertaken during the previous tenancy (as those tenants went up onto the roof and admitted to having done so) and photos following the leak at this tenancy, showing damage, together with reports form the insurance assessor and the contractor.
The tenants denied going up onto the roof. They said that it is possible that people might have thrown bottles up onto the roof from the road or a neighbouring property, causing the damage.
Having carefully reviewed all the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not proved that the damage was not caused carelessly, because: a. The roof was easily accessible and had been accessed by tenants in the past, which led the landlord to write specifically to advise these tenants not to go onto the roof; b. The photos taken after repairs done towards the end of the the previous tenancy show no damage, and the photos taken following the leak at this tenancy show significant damage over various tiles across the roof; c. When the repairs were undertaken during the previous tenancy, the tiles were replaced with lighter colour tiles, and some of these tiles were cracked in the photos taken during this tenancy, following the leak; d. The leak occurred in May, approximately half way into the tenancy, as a direct result of the damaged tiles (and not during any prior rain event) indicating that the damage occurred during this tenancy and was not pre- existing damage; e. The gutter was replaced in early 2025, during the tenancy, but had broken beer bottles inside in when the leak occurred approximately half-way through this tenancy, indicating that people had been on the roof during this tenancy; f. The roof tiles, while fragile, are concrete tiles, and are unlikely to break to such a degree by having bottles thrown at them; g. The gutter has a large number of bottles tops in, which would be very unlikely to occur if people were throwing bottles onto the roof; and h. There was no evidence of any person having thrown bottles on the roof from the road or a neighbouring property. The tenants speculated this might have happened but had not seen it happen.
This claim is proved. The tenants are liable for both excess amounts. Filing fee and name suppression
For completeness I note that the tenants took issue with the landlord’s response to the leak and maintenance generally, which the landlord denied, but did not file their own claim and so I was not able to consider the tenants’ concerns.
The landlord has had mixed success, proving some items and not others, and so I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants sought an order for name suppression. The tenants have had some success, and it appears that although they accepted liability for some items (glass door and ceiling light), they had concerns about the invoices issued, and so disputed these claims on that basis.
In all the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to suppress the tenants’ names pursuant to section 95A RTA. I have also suppressed the tenancy address as I consider this is necessary to protect the identity of the previous tenants, who were not party to a Tribunal claim (having reached agreement with the landlord for a deduction from their bond).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442283 — net $2,985.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage to roof and leak damage (insurance excess of	$2,300.00	Damage to roof and leak damage (insurance excess of
Contribution to dishwasher replacement including installation (by consent	$300.00	Contribution to dishwasher replacement including installation (by consent
Repairs to internal glass doors	$1,000.50	Repairs to internal glass doors
Reconnecting ceiling light wire and securing the light	$185.00	Reconnecting ceiling light wire and securing the light
Net award	$2,985.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,985.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and the tenancy address.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Rempstone Property Management Limited immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone Property Management Limited $2,985.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This tenancy began on 2 December 2024 and ended on 1 December 2025. The tenancy property operates as student flat. There were six tenants. The tenants came to know of the tenancy property through friends who had been tenants at the property the previous year.
The rent was $1,200 per week. The tenants paid a bond of $4,800.
The landlord filed a claim on 11 February 2026 seeking compensation from the tenants as follows:
I was told that the tenants submitted a one-party claim for refund of the bond and that $4,000 was released to the tenants.
The balance of the bond held is $800.

Did the tenants 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 said that the tenants did not clean properly and so additional “top- up” cleaning was required.
The landlord produced outgoing inspection reports and an invoice in the amount of $529.00 for cleaning which states “House Cleanings (Top up Shower box and toilets. All skirting board, cupboards, surface, windowsills. Kitchen, Oven, obvious wall marks)”.
The tenants said that the tenancy property was not clean and tidy when they moved in and produced correspondence with the landlord in this regard. They produced side by side photos of the two showers from the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos, showing very little difference in cleanliness. They acknowledged leaving an oven tray in the oven but say that other than that they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
It is common for landlords to do additional cleaning in between tenancies, particularly where there are large number of tenants as in this case.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that the oven could have been cleaned better (it was replaced during the tenancy so was new) and some additional dusting was likely required. However tenants do not need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy in every respect, they just need to leave it reasonably clean and tidy overall.
The additional cleaning required is the sort of additional cleaning that a landlord could expect to do between tenancies, and particularly in a tenancy of this nature, where there are a large number of tenants.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proven and is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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. Curtains
The landlord said that the curtains were damaged and had come off their tracks. The landlord produced ingoing and outgoing photos of the curtains.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $143.75 for installing curtains and $71.90 for materials and hooks.
The tenants said that the curtains were broken when they moved in, and although they raised the broken curtains with the landlord in the first week of the tenancy, they were never repaired. The landlord produced correspondence with the landlord about the curtains.
The landlord said that the curtains would have been repaired at the same time as various other maintenance items were completed at the start of the tenancy, but did not produce an invoice for curtain repair or other evidence.
Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed. Ceiling light
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy a chandelier ceiling light had come away from the ceiling and needed to be repaired and reconnected.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $185.00 for repairing the damage.
The tenants accepted that they caused the damage but said that they were suspicious of the invoice because it was issued by a property maintenance company and not a registered electrician.
The landlord said that they regularly use the same property maintenance company, who engages all sorts of qualified tradespeople as required, which is why the invoice was not issued by the electrician directly.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenants and that the landlord’s invoice is genuine and reasonable. It is common for property maintenance businesses to undertake a wide variety of maintenance work, engaging qualified tradespeople as necessary. It is not necessary for those tradespeople to invoice the landlord directly.
This claim is proved. Dishwasher replacement
The dishwasher was damaged during the tenancy and the landlord organised for a replacement.
The landlord said that they sought a contribution to the cost of the replacement dishwasher and installation in the amount of $300.
The tenants accepted liability and accepted the contribution of $300. Glass door
The landlord said that that one of the glass doors in the lounge was broken during the tenancy and produced a photos showing a large star shaped crack, which extends right across the bottom part of the window.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $2,438.00 for a various items such as cleaning glass slag on lawn and driveway, washing driveway, various repairs and plastering including a replacing a glass door.
The tenants accepted that they had accidentally broken the glass door, but said that they were not responsible for glass in the garden/driveway or additional damage, and when they visited the property in March 2026 most of the work had not been done and the glass door had not been replaced. They produced photos.
The landlord said that the other work had been done, but that the glass was an unusual type and was still being ordered.
The replacement cost of the glass (including GST) as itemised in the invoice, is $1,000.50. I accept that the landlord has suffered loss and will replace the door as soon as the glass is available.
I am not however satisfied that the landlord has proved the additional damage, so dismiss the balance of this invoice. Damage to roof
The landlord said the tenants had climbed onto the roof, which is easily accessible, and damaged roofing tiles, which then caused significant leaking, which ultimately led to the tenants having to move out (arranged and paid for by the landlord) while repairs were done.
The landlord said that they claimed against their insurance policy but their insurer applied two excesses in the amount of $1,150 each when they discovered that multiple tiles were cracked all across the roof as though they had been walked on and that there were beer bottles in the guttering. One excess was applied for repairing the tiles, and another for the damage caused by the leak. Both excesses were applied on the basis of “malicious damage”.
The landlord produced photos of the roof taken following repairs that were undertaken during the previous tenancy (as those tenants went up onto the roof and admitted to having done so) and photos following the leak at this tenancy, showing damage, together with reports form the insurance assessor and the contractor.
The tenants denied going up onto the roof. They said that it is possible that people might have thrown bottles up onto the roof from the road or a neighbouring property, causing the damage.
Having carefully reviewed all the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not proved that the damage was not caused carelessly, because: a. The roof was easily accessible and had been accessed by tenants in the past, which led the landlord to write specifically to advise these tenants not to go onto the roof; b. The photos taken after repairs done towards the end of the the previous tenancy show no damage, and the photos taken following the leak at this tenancy show significant damage over various tiles across the roof; c. When the repairs were undertaken during the previous tenancy, the tiles were replaced with lighter colour tiles, and some of these tiles were cracked in the photos taken during this tenancy, following the leak; d. The leak occurred in May, approximately half way into the tenancy, as a direct result of the damaged tiles (and not during any prior rain event) indicating that the damage occurred during this tenancy and was not pre- existing damage; e. The gutter was replaced in early 2025, during the tenancy, but had broken beer bottles inside in when the leak occurred approximately half-way through this tenancy, indicating that people had been on the roof during this tenancy; f. The roof tiles, while fragile, are concrete tiles, and are unlikely to break to such a degree by having bottles thrown at them; g. The gutter has a large number of bottles tops in, which would be very unlikely to occur if people were throwing bottles onto the roof; and h. There was no evidence of any person having thrown bottles on the roof from the road or a neighbouring property. The tenants speculated this might have happened but had not seen it happen.
This claim is proved. The tenants are liable for both excess amounts. Filing fee and name suppression
For completeness I note that the tenants took issue with the landlord’s response to the leak and maintenance generally, which the landlord denied, but did not file their own claim and so I was not able to consider the tenants’ concerns.
The landlord has had mixed success, proving some items and not others, and so I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants sought an order for name suppression. The tenants have had some success, and it appears that although they accepted liability for some items (glass door and ceiling light), they had concerns about the invoices issued, and so disputed these claims on that basis.
In all the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to suppress the tenants’ names pursuant to section 95A RTA. I have also suppressed the tenancy address as I consider this is necessary to protect the identity of the previous tenants, who were not party to a Tribunal claim (having reached agreement with the landlord for a deduction from their bond).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442283 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442283 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions