Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5484807 — Property damage
Decided 6 Jul 2026 · Published 6 Jul 2026 · Application 5484807
- Property damage
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 Tenants’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenants] to pay [The party] $620.24 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 party]: $620.24 [The tenants]: $1,379.76
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [The party] attended on behalf of the landlord. Both tenants appeared and self-represented.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants made a cross application for refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and one of the inside rubbish bins were missing.
- The tenants accepted they had forgotten to replace the bin in its holder at the end of the tenancy and accepted the full replacement cost. The landlord confirmed the bin had been hard to located and get shipped to the premise as the house was built in 2008 and the bins were original at that time. Consequentially, I have not depreciated the $95.24 replacement cost.
- The landlords says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seek compensation for $175.00 they say it cost them in their own time to waterblast the paths, garage floor, to tidy the garden and deep clean the house. They also seek compensation for $300.00 they spent getting the carpet in the lounge deep cleaned to remove some marks/dirt the tenants professional carpet cleaner had not removed in its two carpet cleaning sessions on 10 and 12 March 2026.
- The landlords provided exit inspection photographs to support these claims, that showed a section of the yard between the garage and the fence the tenants had sprayed but not weeded out, inside some draws/cupboards/pantry, vents, power points, that required wiping or that were discoloured and were not pristine, and some fly excrement around two inset ceiling lights and light shades. However, the tenants produced evidence from the professional cleaners that prove it cleaned the house three times and the carpet twice, the last time in front of the landlords. The landlords say the cleaning was not to a reasonably clean and tidy standard and confirmed the tenants’ cleaners had said they cleaned the house to a standard clean level and not a deep clean. The landlords claim the house should have been cleaned to a deep clean standard.
- The landlords did not provide any entry inspection photographs or an entry inspection report. Nor did the landlord provide any routine inspection reports and photographs that may have been undertaken during the tenancy. As a result, I was unable to ascertain whether the marks on the carpet existed at the beginning of the tenancy or the condition of the premise at the start of the tenancy. I was also unable to ascertain whether the marks complained of existed after the tenants had the carpet cleaned twice during the tenancy. The landlords had plenty of time to produce these inspection images/reports and did not.
- The landlord stated her laptop and cell phone was stolen a few weeks ago, and that had delayed her filing of pertinent evidence. I note the landlords made their application on 29 March 2026 and have had ample time between then and 6 July 2026 to file the relevant evidence. In fact, the landlord filed 111 pages of evidence late the night before the hearing that the tenants had not had time to review before the 11:30am hearing today. I have reviewed these images and documents during the hearing and more thoroughly post the hearing. If the landlord was able to file so many pages of evidence last night, it was able to file inspection images and a reports as well, but did not.
- The tenants stated the house was at least 20 years old, the carpet was original, it was not pristine at the start of the tenancy, they had paid to have it cleaned twice during the tenancy, and they had inspected the carpet and house after their professional cleaners had cleaned the carpet and house multiple times and were satisfied it was reasonably clean and tidy. They accept it may not have been pristine, but says by law it does not need to be.
- The landlords confirmed they purchased to home in mid-2021 and were not sure how old the carpet was. Public records show the house was built around 2008 (18 years ago) therefore, it is more likely than not the carpet was not in pristine condition at the start of the tenancy. In fact, according to the Inland Revenue depreciation schedule IR265, that indicates that estimated lifespan of carpet is between approximately 8 to 15.5 years, this carpet was past its estimated useful lifespan.
- The burden of proof is on the landlords to prove the house was not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, and that existing marks/dirt complained of, such as the ones on the carpet, pathway and in the garage, were not there at the start of the tenancy and that they have paid a contractor to remedy these issues.
- Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
- In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
- Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
- The tenants provided evidence from their cleaning provider that their cleaner had cleaned the house and carpet to exit inspection standard, being “reasonably clean and tidy” and had returned to the premise to reclean the house twice and to reclean the carpet once. I am satisfied the tenants evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the house and carpet was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”, not immaculate or at professional grade/commercial cleaning standard.
- Additionally, the landlord confirmed it undertook the cleaning, gardening and water blasting itself. Landlords must provide receipts or itemized invoices from third-party professionals to claim bond deductions for cleaning or gardening. Because a landlord's own time doesn't generate a receipt or actual out-of-pocket loss, they cannot charge a theoretical "hourly rate" for their own labour.
- Further, the landlord did not produce any entry or during the tenancy inspection reports and photographs to assist the Tribunal to ascertain whether the carpet dirt/marks were in existence at the start of the tenancy or at any time during the tenancy.
- For the reasons set out above, the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning/gardening costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost.
- The amount ordered for the bin is proved. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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.
- The tenants had a painter come to undertake some remediation of marks on the walls in the lounge, two bedrooms and the hallway. This remediation work consisted of preparation of the damaged areas of the walls and patch painting. The landlord provided photographs that show the painting left patches on the walls that were very obvious to the naked eye and that required some of these walls to be sanded and repainted. The tenants accepted that these patches were not evident at the start of the tenancy and that their painter did this work at the end of the tenancy. They claimed they had gone to some lengths to match the paint on the walls and thought the landlords photographic evidence showed patches as the paint was so newly done at the time the photographs were taken. The photographs were taken at least 10 days after the end of the tenancy and the landlord’s painter confirmed it was a poor colour match that led to the creation of the visual patches in the bedrooms and hallway. Although the landlord failed to provide the Tribunal with any entry inspection photographs of these walls, the tenants and their painters evidence proves the damage was caused during the tenancy by touch up painting rather than painting entire walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered 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 depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
- Because [The applicants] and [The party] have substantially succeeded with their claims, or disproving the other parties claims, I must reimburse the filing fee to both parties. Name suppression
- The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.