What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478729 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5478729?

Cleaning: $538.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,665.71 awarded to landlord; Tile Main Bathroom: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Walls: $106.00 awarded to landlord; Window Stay And Balustrade: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478729?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478729 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5478729?

Cleaning: $538.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,665.71 awarded to landlord; Tile Main Bathroom: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Walls: $106.00 awarded to landlord; Window Stay And Balustrade: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478729?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5478729 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5478729 — net $1,109.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 April 2026	$1,665.71	Rent arrears to 08 April 2026
Cleaning	$247.25	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$538.20	Carpet Cleaning
Fob replacement	$190.00	Fob replacement
Window stay and balustrade	$207.00	Window stay and balustrade
Tile main bathroom	$247.25	Tile main bathroom
Walls	$106.00	Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,109.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,109.41

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,109.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property managers] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy commenced on 09 April 2025 for a fixed term ending 08 April 2026. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, did not return the security access fobs in working condition, and is responsible for a flea infestation.
The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy, and the tenants were the first occupants. The property has two levels, with two bedrooms, a main bathroom, an ensuite bathroom, a kitchen, and an open-plan dining/living area. It is located on the first level of a complex containing 30 other similar properties.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, both containing photographs. They have also provided a photograph taken on 22 January 2026, showing a dog bowl containing biscuits on the landing by the front door, and a 14-day breach notice issued on the same date requiring the tenant to remove any animals from the property.
At the start of the tenancy, the tenant was provided with keys and two security access fobs. During the tenancy, the tenant lost one of the fobs, which was replaced at a cost of $70.00. The landlord sought reimbursement for this from the tenant, but it was not paid during the tenancy. The landlord stated that about a fortnight before the end of the tenancy, the tenant reported that one of the fobs had ceased working. The landlord questioned the tenant about the damage. The tenant stated that, from time to time, they had dropped the keys and fob to others in the carpark below and that they may have fallen on the ground. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord tested both fobs and found that neither worked. The landlord referred to photographs showing the fobs scraped and damaged.
The landlord stated that the new tenant had reported being bitten by insects. However, there is no evidence provided.
The landlord is claiming $247.25 for cleaning, $285.70 for carpet cleaning, $190.00 for the security access fobs, and $375.00 for flea treatment. 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
The provision 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, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific method to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the available evidence, including inspection reports and photographs.
Provided that the property was in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it should be returned in the same condition.
Subject to fair wear and tear chattels should be returned in a reasonable condition. Analysis and decision
Having considered the photographic evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. This includes the carpet which has staining and soiling, there are also some small burn marks.
I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the missing security access fob replaced during the tenancy, and that both fobs were damaged at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage caused is more than fair wear and tear, and likely the result of carelessness.
There is insufficient evidence regarding the flea treatment, and that claim is dismissed.
The amounts claimed for general cleaning, carpet cleaning, and replacing the fobs are reasonable and awarded. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, the carpet, window stays, a tile in the bathroom, and balustrade railing.
As stated, the property was new at the commencement of the tenancy, and the tenants were the first occupants.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, both containing photographs.
The landlord has also provided close up photographs of the damage to walls, the tile in the bathroom, the windows stay, the carpet damage, and the balustrade. 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, to avoid liability, prove 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.
The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $650.00 per claim.
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 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.
Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may result in the tenant being liable for any subsequent damage.
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
The end-of-tenancy photographs show minor damage to the walls throughout the property, consisting of scrapes, nicks, and dings. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. Although each instance of damage can be described as minor, it is widespread, suggesting more than fair wear and tear. The damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the damage is less than the insurance excess.
There are small areas of carpet damage in both bedrooms and the lounge. The tenant has attempted to repair these areas with carpet patches. The repairs are not to a reasonable standard and require further work. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the damage is less than the insurance excess.
The landlord has provided photographs of bedroom windows on the second floor showing that the window stays, which prevent the windows from opening too far, have been unscrewed. The landlord stated that this was dangerous and resulted in the windows being unsafe. I am satisfied that the window stays were unscrewed during the tenancy. Doing so was an intentional act.
The landlord has provided a photograph of a cracked tile in the bathroom between the toilet and the wall. The close-up photograph shows that the likely cause of the damage was an impact, which has caused a large crack and some smaller ones. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the damage is less than the insurance excess.
The landlord has provided a CCTV still from a camera located across from the property, showing that at the end of the tenancy the tenant removed a section of balustrade to remove furniture from the property. Although the tenant reinstated the balustrade, the landlord discovered that the bolts had not been sufficiently tightened and the balustrade was left loose. The landlord was unaware that the tenant had removed and reinstated the balustrade until discovering the damage and viewing the CCTV footage. The landlord stated this was dangerous, and I agree. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was intentional. The amount claimed to tighten the bolts and check the balustrade is less than the insurance excess.
The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy. Only the damaged areas were repaired. There has been no betterment, and I make no deduction. The compensation claimed is awarded in full. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks 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 the name or identifying particulars 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.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5478729 — net $1,109.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 April 2026	$1,665.71	Rent arrears to 08 April 2026
Cleaning	$247.25	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$538.20	Carpet Cleaning
Fob replacement	$190.00	Fob replacement
Window stay and balustrade	$207.00	Window stay and balustrade
Tile main bathroom	$247.25	Tile main bathroom
Walls	$106.00	Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,109.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,109.41

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,109.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property managers] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy commenced on 09 April 2025 for a fixed term ending 08 April 2026. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, did not return the security access fobs in working condition, and is responsible for a flea infestation.
The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy, and the tenants were the first occupants. The property has two levels, with two bedrooms, a main bathroom, an ensuite bathroom, a kitchen, and an open-plan dining/living area. It is located on the first level of a complex containing 30 other similar properties.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, both containing photographs. They have also provided a photograph taken on 22 January 2026, showing a dog bowl containing biscuits on the landing by the front door, and a 14-day breach notice issued on the same date requiring the tenant to remove any animals from the property.
At the start of the tenancy, the tenant was provided with keys and two security access fobs. During the tenancy, the tenant lost one of the fobs, which was replaced at a cost of $70.00. The landlord sought reimbursement for this from the tenant, but it was not paid during the tenancy. The landlord stated that about a fortnight before the end of the tenancy, the tenant reported that one of the fobs had ceased working. The landlord questioned the tenant about the damage. The tenant stated that, from time to time, they had dropped the keys and fob to others in the carpark below and that they may have fallen on the ground. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord tested both fobs and found that neither worked. The landlord referred to photographs showing the fobs scraped and damaged.
The landlord stated that the new tenant had reported being bitten by insects. However, there is no evidence provided.
The landlord is claiming $247.25 for cleaning, $285.70 for carpet cleaning, $190.00 for the security access fobs, and $375.00 for flea treatment. 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
The provision 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, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific method to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the available evidence, including inspection reports and photographs.
Provided that the property was in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it should be returned in the same condition.
Subject to fair wear and tear chattels should be returned in a reasonable condition. Analysis and decision
Having considered the photographic evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. This includes the carpet which has staining and soiling, there are also some small burn marks.
I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the missing security access fob replaced during the tenancy, and that both fobs were damaged at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage caused is more than fair wear and tear, and likely the result of carelessness.
There is insufficient evidence regarding the flea treatment, and that claim is dismissed.
The amounts claimed for general cleaning, carpet cleaning, and replacing the fobs are reasonable and awarded. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, the carpet, window stays, a tile in the bathroom, and balustrade railing.
As stated, the property was new at the commencement of the tenancy, and the tenants were the first occupants.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, both containing photographs.
The landlord has also provided close up photographs of the damage to walls, the tile in the bathroom, the windows stay, the carpet damage, and the balustrade. 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, to avoid liability, prove 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.
The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $650.00 per claim.
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 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.
Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may result in the tenant being liable for any subsequent damage.
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
The end-of-tenancy photographs show minor damage to the walls throughout the property, consisting of scrapes, nicks, and dings. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. Although each instance of damage can be described as minor, it is widespread, suggesting more than fair wear and tear. The damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the damage is less than the insurance excess.
There are small areas of carpet damage in both bedrooms and the lounge. The tenant has attempted to repair these areas with carpet patches. The repairs are not to a reasonable standard and require further work. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the damage is less than the insurance excess.
The landlord has provided photographs of bedroom windows on the second floor showing that the window stays, which prevent the windows from opening too far, have been unscrewed. The landlord stated that this was dangerous and resulted in the windows being unsafe. I am satisfied that the window stays were unscrewed during the tenancy. Doing so was an intentional act.
The landlord has provided a photograph of a cracked tile in the bathroom between the toilet and the wall. The close-up photograph shows that the likely cause of the damage was an impact, which has caused a large crack and some smaller ones. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the damage is less than the insurance excess.
The landlord has provided a CCTV still from a camera located across from the property, showing that at the end of the tenancy the tenant removed a section of balustrade to remove furniture from the property. Although the tenant reinstated the balustrade, the landlord discovered that the bolts had not been sufficiently tightened and the balustrade was left loose. The landlord was unaware that the tenant had removed and reinstated the balustrade until discovering the damage and viewing the CCTV footage. The landlord stated this was dangerous, and I agree. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was intentional. The amount claimed to tighten the bolts and check the balustrade is less than the insurance excess.
The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy. Only the damaged areas were repaired. There has been no betterment, and I make no deduction. The compensation claimed is awarded in full. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks 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 the name or identifying particulars 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.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478729 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478729 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions