Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5471457 — Property damage
Decided 1 Jul 2026 · Published 1 Jul 2026 · Application 5471457
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $890.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $890.50 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,109.50
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [Ms K] represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants accept the water rates claim.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean, in particular the insides of cupboards, the toilet door, the fire hearth, and floor coverings, and did not leave the lawns reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The tenants claim that they should have been given the opportunity to return to the premises after the tenancy ended to complete any additional work that may be required. However, a tenant’s obligation is to clean and tidy the premises (and repair any damage) before the tenancy ends. If they fail to do so the landlord may have the work completed themselves and claim the reasonable costs from the tenant. There is no obligation on a landlord to allow a tenant to return to complete work after the tenancy has ended.
- The amounts claimed have been established by the production of an invoice. The amount claimed to mow the lawns has been reduced because the work was completed some two weeks after the tenancy ended and therefore would likely have required additional work due to growth in the two-week period.
Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?
- To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- The landlord claims the cost to repair the following damage: • The kitchen door, laundry door and a bedroom door were damaged by scratches or holes/dents • The wall in the living room was damaged by a gouge/dent
- The tenants accept the damage to the kitchen door was caused during the tenancy by Mr Tibbotts’ wheelchair scraping against it. I am satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the damage was caused carelessly by the tenants (by Mr Tibbotts not taking reasonable care when manoeuvring his wheelchair). The therefore find the tenants liable for the damage.
- I am also satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence (in particular photographs of the doors at the tenancy commencement and at the tenancy end, and the pre tenancy condition report) that the damage to the other two doors occurred during the tenancy. I also find that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. In particular, Ms Aitken said that they were unaware of the damage but thought it may have been caused by Mr Tibbott’s wheelchair.
- However, I dismiss the damage to the living room wall. I consider that this damage was more likely than not caused by ordinary wear and tear and not by the careless or intentional actions of the tenants. This claim is therefore dismissed.
- Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider $450.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the doors. Tribunal application fee and suppression
- The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee.
- The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
- Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
- The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.