What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495336 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 5495336?

The reconciled net award was $320.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495336?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13694496-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495336 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 5495336?

The reconciled net award was $320.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495336?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13694496-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495336 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495336 — net $320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund bond received by landlord	$320.00	Refund bond received by landlord
Net award	$320.00
Bond	$2,695.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $320.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $2,695.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Five tenants and the landlord attended the hearing, the latter by telephone.
On 4/2/2026 the tenants applied for a refund of their bond of $4,830.00.
Subsequently on 18/2/2026 and unbeknown to the tenants, the landlord sought a refund of $2,135.00 of the bond from the Bond Centre.
Unfortunately, the Bond Centre paid the landlord, in an error which it later admitted.
To substantiate the claim for the part of the bond which had been refunded the landlord filed a claim on 22/4/2026 for compensation of $2,135.00.
By the time the parties attended the unsuccessful mediation the relationship between them had significantly deteriorated.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,610.00 rent per week.

Did the tenants 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 landlord claimed compensation of $170.00 for carpet cleaning.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs dated 23/12/2024 and 18/12/2025 respectively and invoices from a carpet cleaner dated 8/1/2025 and 19/12/2025 respectively.
The landlord was unhappy with the staining to the lounge carpet and chewing gum residue.
In response the tenants submitted that they had left the premises clean and tidy and used a rug doctor on the carpets twice before the last tenant vacated on 18/11/2025.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, or that the carpets needed cleaning.
The supporting photographs are unclear and the invoice from the carpet cleaner does not explain why the carpets needed cleaning.
In addition, the invoice from the carpet cleaner is dated 19/12/2025 which raises a presumption that the work was undertaken before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that consent had not been obtained from the tenants for the carpet cleaning before the tenancy ended.
Although the landlord considered the date on the invoice was wrong, she was unable to provide the date the carpets were cleaned.
I find the landlord is estopped from claiming for the carpet cleaning because she effectively re-entered into possession of the premises before the end of the tenancy.
The claim for carpet cleaning fails.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,967.00 as follows: a. $150.00 towards replacement of a damaged clothesline, b. $1,817.00 for repairs to a kitchen bench.
In support of the claim for the clothesline the landlord suggested that the tenants had been “swinging on it”.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the bench from a hot pot being placed on it and an estimate for repairs.
The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,150.00 but no insurance claim has been made for the damage.
On the other hand, the tenants suggested that the damage to the clothesline occurred before their tenancy began, as they had noticed it when they walked past the premises to University in 2024.
However, the tenants agreed they put a hot pot on the kitchen bench twice, but that the damage caused was only 4 or 5 small holes, and there was existing staining and cuts.
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.
The evidence provided by the landlord has failed to persuade me that the damage to the clothesline was caused during the term of the tenancy.
There were no property inspection reports to support when the damage occurred and the tenants denied liability.
The claim for compensation of $150.00 fails.
However, I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the kitchen bench top and was more than fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation of $1,817.00 is reasonable and successful.
As the landlord has already received part of the bond, I have made an order for her to refund $320.00 for the failed claims to the tenants.
I have also awarded the balance of the unclaimed bond to the tenants.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful with their claims and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) because I consider it is in their respective interests to do so. I have also taken into account the error made by the Bond Centre which meant that the tenants needed to pursue their claim in the Tribunal about the bond.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495336 — net $320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund bond received by landlord	$320.00	Refund bond received by landlord
Net award	$320.00
Bond	$2,695.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $320.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $2,695.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Five tenants and the landlord attended the hearing, the latter by telephone.
On 4/2/2026 the tenants applied for a refund of their bond of $4,830.00.
Subsequently on 18/2/2026 and unbeknown to the tenants, the landlord sought a refund of $2,135.00 of the bond from the Bond Centre.
Unfortunately, the Bond Centre paid the landlord, in an error which it later admitted.
To substantiate the claim for the part of the bond which had been refunded the landlord filed a claim on 22/4/2026 for compensation of $2,135.00.
By the time the parties attended the unsuccessful mediation the relationship between them had significantly deteriorated.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at $1,610.00 rent per week.

Did the tenants 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 landlord claimed compensation of $170.00 for carpet cleaning.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs dated 23/12/2024 and 18/12/2025 respectively and invoices from a carpet cleaner dated 8/1/2025 and 19/12/2025 respectively.
The landlord was unhappy with the staining to the lounge carpet and chewing gum residue.
In response the tenants submitted that they had left the premises clean and tidy and used a rug doctor on the carpets twice before the last tenant vacated on 18/11/2025.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, or that the carpets needed cleaning.
The supporting photographs are unclear and the invoice from the carpet cleaner does not explain why the carpets needed cleaning.
In addition, the invoice from the carpet cleaner is dated 19/12/2025 which raises a presumption that the work was undertaken before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed that consent had not been obtained from the tenants for the carpet cleaning before the tenancy ended.
Although the landlord considered the date on the invoice was wrong, she was unable to provide the date the carpets were cleaned.
I find the landlord is estopped from claiming for the carpet cleaning because she effectively re-entered into possession of the premises before the end of the tenancy.
The claim for carpet cleaning fails.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,967.00 as follows: a. $150.00 towards replacement of a damaged clothesline, b. $1,817.00 for repairs to a kitchen bench.
In support of the claim for the clothesline the landlord suggested that the tenants had been “swinging on it”.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the bench from a hot pot being placed on it and an estimate for repairs.
The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,150.00 but no insurance claim has been made for the damage.
On the other hand, the tenants suggested that the damage to the clothesline occurred before their tenancy began, as they had noticed it when they walked past the premises to University in 2024.
However, the tenants agreed they put a hot pot on the kitchen bench twice, but that the damage caused was only 4 or 5 small holes, and there was existing staining and cuts.
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.
The evidence provided by the landlord has failed to persuade me that the damage to the clothesline was caused during the term of the tenancy.
There were no property inspection reports to support when the damage occurred and the tenants denied liability.
The claim for compensation of $150.00 fails.
However, I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the kitchen bench top and was more than fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation of $1,817.00 is reasonable and successful.
As the landlord has already received part of the bond, I have made an order for her to refund $320.00 for the failed claims to the tenants.
I have also awarded the balance of the unclaimed bond to the tenants.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful with their claims and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) because I consider it is in their respective interests to do so. I have also taken into account the error made by the Bond Centre which meant that the tenants needed to pursue their claim in the Tribunal about the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495336 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495336 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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