What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491491 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 5491491?

Cleaning: $1,120.63 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $231.43 awarded to landlord; Lawn: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13697015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491491 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 5491491?

Cleaning: $1,120.63 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $231.43 awarded to landlord; Lawn: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13697015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

45 Surrey Road, Springvale, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491491 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491491 — net $57.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$231.43	Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: lightbulbs	$40.00	Replace furnishings: lightbulbs
Carpet Cleaning: and concrete sealing	$1,120.63	Carpet Cleaning: and concrete sealing
Replace furnishings: carpets	$500.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Repairs: wall	$250.00	Repairs: wall
Repairs: lawn	$75.00	Repairs: lawn
Net award	$57.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$57.06

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] must pay [The landlord/s] $707.06 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$231.43 Replace furnishings: lightbulbs$40.00 Carpet Cleaning: and concrete sealing$1,120.63 Replace furnishings: carpets$500.00 Repairs: wall$250.00 Repairs: lawn$75.00 Total award$2,217.06 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$57.06

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 October 2025. The landlord provided 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?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that there were some few, small areas where the tenant had not cleaned some surfaces in the kitchen and bathroom. As discussed at the hearing, the tenant does not have to leave each and every item spotless or to a hotel standard, nor does the tenant have to spring clean the premises.
The tenant gave evidence that they were advised that they did not need to complete the cleaning to a high level because the property was going to be extensively renovated for sale. The tenant’s photographic evidence of the property listing for sale shows that the premises, including both the kitchen and the bathroom, were completely renovated at the end of the tenancy. It is not appropriate to award any amount for cleaning of an area which was completely renovated.
The Tribunal would have awarded only a modest amount for the few small areas left uncleaned by the tenant, but the demolition of these areas rendered the need to clean them nugatory and so the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

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 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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet in every room required replacement because of damage caused by cat urine. b. There was a wall corner in bedroom 1 which had been clawed by a cat. c. A bracket to the heated towel rail in the bathroom was broken. d. There was damage to areas of the lawn caused by the tenant’s cars.
In addition to photographic evidence, the landlord provided a service report from a specialist carpet cleaning contractor which confirmed the damage and included a map of “cat urine events” which detected only recent urine. The landlord claimed that the damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s four cats and that because the tenant did not stop their cats from causing the ongoing damage, it was intentional damage. The landlord gave evidence that the smell was so bad that they had to keep doors closed as they inspected the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant denied that their cats caused the damage. They noted that the property manager did not raise the issue at any inspection until a 14-day notice was issued on 7 July 2025, 18-months into the tenancy. The tenant provided evidence that the property manager was pleased with how they were keeping the premises on regular inspections. The tenant confirmed that they regularly cleaned the carpets with their own carpet cleaner. The tenant claimed that previous tenants had also had cats. The landlord confirmed that the owners had also had a cat.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that damage caused by the tenant’s cats occurred during the tenancy and was intentional as detailed in Guo v Korck above. The photographic evidence of the landlord at the start of the tenancy compared with the landlord’s photographic evidence at the end of the tenancy, the ingoing report at the start of the tenancy showing no issue combined with the landlord’s specialist report, persuades the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that a large proportion of the cat damage, if not all of it, was caused during the tenancy. The fact that the landlord only issued a 14-day notice towards the end of the tenancy does not mean that the problem did not escalate. The tenant’s regular cleaning of the carpets indicates that the tenants were aware that there was an issue.
It remains to consider the amount the landlord is claiming for the replacement of all carpets, including in the bedroom wardrobes. The landlord did not produce any documentary evidence which could prove the age of the carpets. Its contractor by email estimated that the carpets were four to eight years old. This is a very broad estimate that is of little probative value.
The ingoing photographs indicate that they were already stained and worn at the start of the tenancy. Having examined the photographs closely, the Tribunal determines that the carpets were at least eight-years old and that they had little residual value. The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation schedule confirms the life of a wool carpet at eight years. Two of the bedrooms and the wardrobes had the original carpets which would be 50-years old. These comprise 25 m2 out of a total carpeted area of 84 m2. The photographic evidence from the ingoing inspection report is that the remaining carpets were at the end of their useful life.
The landlord is entitled to the total cost of the specialist contractor’s cost in trying to clean the carpets and then sealing the concrete. It is appropriate that the landlord be awarded a modest sum to reflect the small remaining utility value of the carpets.
The tenant accepted that the small area of wall damage was caused during the tenancy by a cat. The amount claimed by the landlord is extraordinarily large and cannot be justified by the photographic evidence of the damage. The Tribunal accepts that because the damage was on a corner it may have cost more to repair. It does not accept that the loss suffered equals the amount of the tradesperson’s invoice. Given the extensive renovations to the premises after the end of the tenancy, it is not difficult to conclude that the landlord’s invoice includes charges for work not related to the small area requiring repair.
The Tribunal awards a sum sufficient to return the wall to the position it was in at the start of the tenancy based on invoices which it regularly sees in this area for similar work.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded that the minor damage to the towel rail required its replacement or was not caused by fair wear and tear. The photographic evidence shows that the towel rail was not new. It is not unusual that a bracket may break due to ordinary use as claimed by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for the towel rail’s replacement is dismissed.
While the tenant accepted that some of the minor damage to small areas of the lawn were caused by parking a car on it, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the landlord’s evidence that the very small area in the lawn or alongside the paving stones was caused in this manner by the tenant. A reduced sum has been awarded for the repair of the small areas of lawn on the corner and just past the turning area which the tenant accepted was caused by her. Suppression
The landlord has requested suppression and has been substantially successful in its claims. It is entitled to suppression which is granted.
The tenant responsibly accepted some of the landlord’s claim but has successfully challenged the amounts claimed by the landlord. The tenant had requested name suppression. It is appropriate to grant the tenant’s request because the tenant has been substantially successful in disputing, reducing and defeating the landlord’s claims. In addition, the sums awarded are not significantly greater than the bond. There is therefore no significant public interest in publishing the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491491 — net $57.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$231.43	Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: lightbulbs	$40.00	Replace furnishings: lightbulbs
Carpet Cleaning: and concrete sealing	$1,120.63	Carpet Cleaning: and concrete sealing
Replace furnishings: carpets	$500.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Repairs: wall	$250.00	Repairs: wall
Repairs: lawn	$75.00	Repairs: lawn
Net award	$57.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$57.06

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] must pay [The landlord/s] $707.06 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$231.43 Replace furnishings: lightbulbs$40.00 Carpet Cleaning: and concrete sealing$1,120.63 Replace furnishings: carpets$500.00 Repairs: wall$250.00 Repairs: lawn$75.00 Total award$2,217.06 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$57.06

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 October 2025. The landlord provided 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?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that there were some few, small areas where the tenant had not cleaned some surfaces in the kitchen and bathroom. As discussed at the hearing, the tenant does not have to leave each and every item spotless or to a hotel standard, nor does the tenant have to spring clean the premises.
The tenant gave evidence that they were advised that they did not need to complete the cleaning to a high level because the property was going to be extensively renovated for sale. The tenant’s photographic evidence of the property listing for sale shows that the premises, including both the kitchen and the bathroom, were completely renovated at the end of the tenancy. It is not appropriate to award any amount for cleaning of an area which was completely renovated.
The Tribunal would have awarded only a modest amount for the few small areas left uncleaned by the tenant, but the demolition of these areas rendered the need to clean them nugatory and so the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

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 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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet in every room required replacement because of damage caused by cat urine. b. There was a wall corner in bedroom 1 which had been clawed by a cat. c. A bracket to the heated towel rail in the bathroom was broken. d. There was damage to areas of the lawn caused by the tenant’s cars.
In addition to photographic evidence, the landlord provided a service report from a specialist carpet cleaning contractor which confirmed the damage and included a map of “cat urine events” which detected only recent urine. The landlord claimed that the damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s four cats and that because the tenant did not stop their cats from causing the ongoing damage, it was intentional damage. The landlord gave evidence that the smell was so bad that they had to keep doors closed as they inspected the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant denied that their cats caused the damage. They noted that the property manager did not raise the issue at any inspection until a 14-day notice was issued on 7 July 2025, 18-months into the tenancy. The tenant provided evidence that the property manager was pleased with how they were keeping the premises on regular inspections. The tenant confirmed that they regularly cleaned the carpets with their own carpet cleaner. The tenant claimed that previous tenants had also had cats. The landlord confirmed that the owners had also had a cat.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that damage caused by the tenant’s cats occurred during the tenancy and was intentional as detailed in Guo v Korck above. The photographic evidence of the landlord at the start of the tenancy compared with the landlord’s photographic evidence at the end of the tenancy, the ingoing report at the start of the tenancy showing no issue combined with the landlord’s specialist report, persuades the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that a large proportion of the cat damage, if not all of it, was caused during the tenancy. The fact that the landlord only issued a 14-day notice towards the end of the tenancy does not mean that the problem did not escalate. The tenant’s regular cleaning of the carpets indicates that the tenants were aware that there was an issue.
It remains to consider the amount the landlord is claiming for the replacement of all carpets, including in the bedroom wardrobes. The landlord did not produce any documentary evidence which could prove the age of the carpets. Its contractor by email estimated that the carpets were four to eight years old. This is a very broad estimate that is of little probative value.
The ingoing photographs indicate that they were already stained and worn at the start of the tenancy. Having examined the photographs closely, the Tribunal determines that the carpets were at least eight-years old and that they had little residual value. The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation schedule confirms the life of a wool carpet at eight years. Two of the bedrooms and the wardrobes had the original carpets which would be 50-years old. These comprise 25 m2 out of a total carpeted area of 84 m2. The photographic evidence from the ingoing inspection report is that the remaining carpets were at the end of their useful life.
The landlord is entitled to the total cost of the specialist contractor’s cost in trying to clean the carpets and then sealing the concrete. It is appropriate that the landlord be awarded a modest sum to reflect the small remaining utility value of the carpets.
The tenant accepted that the small area of wall damage was caused during the tenancy by a cat. The amount claimed by the landlord is extraordinarily large and cannot be justified by the photographic evidence of the damage. The Tribunal accepts that because the damage was on a corner it may have cost more to repair. It does not accept that the loss suffered equals the amount of the tradesperson’s invoice. Given the extensive renovations to the premises after the end of the tenancy, it is not difficult to conclude that the landlord’s invoice includes charges for work not related to the small area requiring repair.
The Tribunal awards a sum sufficient to return the wall to the position it was in at the start of the tenancy based on invoices which it regularly sees in this area for similar work.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded that the minor damage to the towel rail required its replacement or was not caused by fair wear and tear. The photographic evidence shows that the towel rail was not new. It is not unusual that a bracket may break due to ordinary use as claimed by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for the towel rail’s replacement is dismissed.
While the tenant accepted that some of the minor damage to small areas of the lawn were caused by parking a car on it, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the landlord’s evidence that the very small area in the lawn or alongside the paving stones was caused in this manner by the tenant. A reduced sum has been awarded for the repair of the small areas of lawn on the corner and just past the turning area which the tenant accepted was caused by her. Suppression
The landlord has requested suppression and has been substantially successful in its claims. It is entitled to suppression which is granted.
The tenant responsibly accepted some of the landlord’s claim but has successfully challenged the amounts claimed by the landlord. The tenant had requested name suppression. It is appropriate to grant the tenant’s request because the tenant has been substantially successful in disputing, reducing and defeating the landlord’s claims. In addition, the sums awarded are not significantly greater than the bond. There is therefore no significant public interest in publishing the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491491 — Cleanliness at 45 Surrey Road, Springvale, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491491 — Cleanliness at 45 Surrey Road, Springvale, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions