What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445128 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5445128?

Cleaning: $272.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $148.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445128?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445128 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5445128?

Cleaning: $272.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $148.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445128?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445128 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445128 — net $304.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 January 2026	$148.57	Rent arrears to 02 January 2026
Remote control replacement	$146.05	Remote control replacement
Flea treatment	$400.00	Flea treatment
Repairs	$1,550.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$272.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$304.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$304.62

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $304.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property Managers ] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by a support person.
On 18 February 2026, the landlord filed the following claim: i.Rent arrears of $148.57 ii.Failure to return garage remotes. iii.Failure to leave the property reasonably clean. iv.Flea treatment v.Damage Rent arrears.
The tenancy commenced on 22 October 2021 for a fixed term ending 20 January 2022, after which it became periodic. The tenant gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 30 December 2025. After giving notice, the tenant requested an additional two days to vacate the property. The landlord agreed, and the tenant vacated the property on 02 January 2026. The landlord is seeking the rent owing for those two additional days. The landlord has provided an up-to-date rent summary. The summary shows that apart from the two additional days’ rent, the tenant was up to date.
The tenant accepted that they had been given additional days and vacated the property on 02 January 2026 but questioned whether they should be liable for the additional rent.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for rent while they remained in possession of the property. I award the landlord the two days claimed. Garage remotes
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant failed to return both of the garage remotes. That they returned one remote, but it was too late, and they had already arranged a replacement for the incoming tenant. The landlord is claiming $292.10 to replace the remotes.
There are no remotes recorded in the pre-tenancy check list, which shows that the remotes are still to be provided.
The landlord states that remotes were provided to the tenant on or about 11 November 2021 by the previous agent.
The tenant accepted that they had not returned the remote until on or about 20 January 2026. However, they denied that they had been provided with two remotes. They stated that one of the remotes had been faulty and had been taken by the contractor who had provided it.
The property has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a separate toilet, kitchen, an open plan dining / lounge, and a single internal garage.
The landlord states the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming $322.00 for cleaning, emptying, and washing the rubbish bins, and removing carpet stains.
The landlord has provided an end-of- tenancy inspection report, which includes photographs.
The tenant denies failing to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Referring to the photographs of underneath the burners on the gas hob, they note that none show this area at the commencement of the tenancy. Another photograph shows the dishwasher filter, which requires cleaning. The tenant stated that they did not use the dishwasher during the tenancy and again noted that there were no photographs showing the filter’s cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant stated that they had put the general waste bin out for collection but accepted that it would not be collected until the week after. The tenant states that the inside of the food scraps bin was not clean at the commencement of the tenancy and notes that there are no photographs showing the inside of any of the bins at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that during the end of tenancy inspection and the inspection prior to a new tenancy commencing 13 January 2026, fleas had bitten them while at the property. The landlord provided a photograph, which they state they took at the time showing insect bites. The landlord has provided an email from the next tenant complaining of fleas and attaching photographs of flea bites.
The tenancy agreement did not allow for pets. The landlord stated that on 24 June 2025, they had discovered a dog inside and had been advised by the tenant that the dog had been visiting with its owner for one day only. The landlord stated the tenant removed the dog and put it in their vehicle parked outside.
The landlord stated that on 09 September 2025, they had observed a cat on of the beds. A photograph has been provided showing a cat sitting on a bed. The landlord claims that it is more likely than not the tenancy has allowed the dog to be kept at the property for more than a day and is therefore responsible for the fleas. The landlord is seeking the treatment costs of $400.00.
The tenant denied that the dog had been at the property for more than one day. They stated that the cat shown in the photographs was not theirs and belonged to an occupant of a nearby unit, but that, as their children enjoyed the cat, they had not actively tried to keep it out. Law
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 (Act).
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant.
Insect infestation can occur naturally. For the tenant to be liable, the landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s act or omission caused. Analysis and decision
During the tenancy there was a change of agent/property manager for the landlord. The landlord is therefore unable to challenge the tenant’s evidence that they were given only one working remote. However, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return the remote within a reasonable time after the end of the tenancy. The landlord was obliged to secure the property for the incoming tenant on 13 January 2026. The claim is to replace and code two remotes. I therefore award the landlord half of the amount claimed.
Having considered the end-of-tenancy photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and to remove all rubbish. There are stains and soiling on the carpet that were not present at the commencement of the tenancy. However, I accept the tenant’s submission regarding the gas hob and the dishwasher, and the inside of the bins. I reduce the claim by $50.00 to reflect the time and effort I estimate was spent cleaning these areas.
I prefer the evidence of the landlord. I am satisfied that more likely than not, the dog was at the property for more than the one day claimed by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the fleas, which likely relate to the dog, rather than the cat. Accordingly, I award the amount claimed. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a downpipe and multiple damage to walls throughout the property, two internal doors, skirting board, a shelf in a wardrobe, and damage caused by removing child locks on two cupboard doors.
The landlord seeks $107.00 to repair the downpipe and $1,550.00 to repair the other damage.
The landlord submits that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for such damage with $650.00 excess per event.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage, as well as the pre- tenancy inspection report and photographs showing the condition of the damaged areas at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had attempted to repair damage but that the repairs had not been completed to a reasonable standard, although it did reduce the cost of repair.
The tenant denied responsibility for the damage to the downpipe, which is located at the front of the property and close to a shared driveway accessed by residents, and visitors, to other nearby units.
The tenant denied liability for the other damage, stating that the tenancy had lasted for just over five years, that they had four children aged 3, 12, 15, and 16, and that the damage should be considered no more than fair wear and tear. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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.
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 when a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness, the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is, a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, as well as their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the drainpipe. The photographs confirm that the drainpipe is located in an area near a shared driveway that is accessible by other tenant’s vehicles.
Regarding the other damage, I am satisfied that this has occurred during the tenancy. Having viewed the photographs I cannot accept the tenant’s submission that it is no more than fair wear and tear. While the individual areas of damage are relatively minor, it is nonetheless fairly widespread. The nature and extent of the damage also indicates it was likely the result of carelessness. The tenant is responsible for the actions of their children. The invoice has been itemised. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed are reasonable. I make no deduction for betterment, as only the damaged areas were repainted. Costs
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed, I find that both parties have been sufficiently successful and are entitled to suppression of their names and the address of the property.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445128 — net $304.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 January 2026	$148.57	Rent arrears to 02 January 2026
Remote control replacement	$146.05	Remote control replacement
Flea treatment	$400.00	Flea treatment
Repairs	$1,550.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$272.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$304.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$304.62

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $304.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property Managers ] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by a support person.
On 18 February 2026, the landlord filed the following claim: i.Rent arrears of $148.57 ii.Failure to return garage remotes. iii.Failure to leave the property reasonably clean. iv.Flea treatment v.Damage Rent arrears.
The tenancy commenced on 22 October 2021 for a fixed term ending 20 January 2022, after which it became periodic. The tenant gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 30 December 2025. After giving notice, the tenant requested an additional two days to vacate the property. The landlord agreed, and the tenant vacated the property on 02 January 2026. The landlord is seeking the rent owing for those two additional days. The landlord has provided an up-to-date rent summary. The summary shows that apart from the two additional days’ rent, the tenant was up to date.
The tenant accepted that they had been given additional days and vacated the property on 02 January 2026 but questioned whether they should be liable for the additional rent.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for rent while they remained in possession of the property. I award the landlord the two days claimed. Garage remotes
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant failed to return both of the garage remotes. That they returned one remote, but it was too late, and they had already arranged a replacement for the incoming tenant. The landlord is claiming $292.10 to replace the remotes.
There are no remotes recorded in the pre-tenancy check list, which shows that the remotes are still to be provided.
The landlord states that remotes were provided to the tenant on or about 11 November 2021 by the previous agent.
The tenant accepted that they had not returned the remote until on or about 20 January 2026. However, they denied that they had been provided with two remotes. They stated that one of the remotes had been faulty and had been taken by the contractor who had provided it.
The property has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a separate toilet, kitchen, an open plan dining / lounge, and a single internal garage.
The landlord states the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming $322.00 for cleaning, emptying, and washing the rubbish bins, and removing carpet stains.
The landlord has provided an end-of- tenancy inspection report, which includes photographs.
The tenant denies failing to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Referring to the photographs of underneath the burners on the gas hob, they note that none show this area at the commencement of the tenancy. Another photograph shows the dishwasher filter, which requires cleaning. The tenant stated that they did not use the dishwasher during the tenancy and again noted that there were no photographs showing the filter’s cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant stated that they had put the general waste bin out for collection but accepted that it would not be collected until the week after. The tenant states that the inside of the food scraps bin was not clean at the commencement of the tenancy and notes that there are no photographs showing the inside of any of the bins at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that during the end of tenancy inspection and the inspection prior to a new tenancy commencing 13 January 2026, fleas had bitten them while at the property. The landlord provided a photograph, which they state they took at the time showing insect bites. The landlord has provided an email from the next tenant complaining of fleas and attaching photographs of flea bites.
The tenancy agreement did not allow for pets. The landlord stated that on 24 June 2025, they had discovered a dog inside and had been advised by the tenant that the dog had been visiting with its owner for one day only. The landlord stated the tenant removed the dog and put it in their vehicle parked outside.
The landlord stated that on 09 September 2025, they had observed a cat on of the beds. A photograph has been provided showing a cat sitting on a bed. The landlord claims that it is more likely than not the tenancy has allowed the dog to be kept at the property for more than a day and is therefore responsible for the fleas. The landlord is seeking the treatment costs of $400.00.
The tenant denied that the dog had been at the property for more than one day. They stated that the cat shown in the photographs was not theirs and belonged to an occupant of a nearby unit, but that, as their children enjoyed the cat, they had not actively tried to keep it out. Law
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 (Act).
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant.
Insect infestation can occur naturally. For the tenant to be liable, the landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s act or omission caused. Analysis and decision
During the tenancy there was a change of agent/property manager for the landlord. The landlord is therefore unable to challenge the tenant’s evidence that they were given only one working remote. However, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return the remote within a reasonable time after the end of the tenancy. The landlord was obliged to secure the property for the incoming tenant on 13 January 2026. The claim is to replace and code two remotes. I therefore award the landlord half of the amount claimed.
Having considered the end-of-tenancy photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and to remove all rubbish. There are stains and soiling on the carpet that were not present at the commencement of the tenancy. However, I accept the tenant’s submission regarding the gas hob and the dishwasher, and the inside of the bins. I reduce the claim by $50.00 to reflect the time and effort I estimate was spent cleaning these areas.
I prefer the evidence of the landlord. I am satisfied that more likely than not, the dog was at the property for more than the one day claimed by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the fleas, which likely relate to the dog, rather than the cat. Accordingly, I award the amount claimed. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a downpipe and multiple damage to walls throughout the property, two internal doors, skirting board, a shelf in a wardrobe, and damage caused by removing child locks on two cupboard doors.
The landlord seeks $107.00 to repair the downpipe and $1,550.00 to repair the other damage.
The landlord submits that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for such damage with $650.00 excess per event.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage, as well as the pre- tenancy inspection report and photographs showing the condition of the damaged areas at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had attempted to repair damage but that the repairs had not been completed to a reasonable standard, although it did reduce the cost of repair.
The tenant denied responsibility for the damage to the downpipe, which is located at the front of the property and close to a shared driveway accessed by residents, and visitors, to other nearby units.
The tenant denied liability for the other damage, stating that the tenancy had lasted for just over five years, that they had four children aged 3, 12, 15, and 16, and that the damage should be considered no more than fair wear and tear. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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.
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 when a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness, the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is, a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, as well as their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the drainpipe. The photographs confirm that the drainpipe is located in an area near a shared driveway that is accessible by other tenant’s vehicles.
Regarding the other damage, I am satisfied that this has occurred during the tenancy. Having viewed the photographs I cannot accept the tenant’s submission that it is no more than fair wear and tear. While the individual areas of damage are relatively minor, it is nonetheless fairly widespread. The nature and extent of the damage also indicates it was likely the result of carelessness. The tenant is responsible for the actions of their children. The invoice has been itemised. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed are reasonable. I make no deduction for betterment, as only the damaged areas were repainted. Costs
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed, I find that both parties have been sufficiently successful and are entitled to suppression of their names and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445128 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445128 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions