What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496433 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 5496433?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $471.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,578.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,121.25 awarded to landlord; Wall And Door Reparis And Painting: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,426.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $70.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496433?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14057423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496433 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 5496433?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $471.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,578.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,121.25 awarded to landlord; Wall And Door Reparis And Painting: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,426.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $70.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496433?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14057423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496433 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496433 — net $3,213.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: 2 x 9 cubic meter skip bins and labour	$1,426.00	Rubbish removal: 2 x 9 cubic meter skip bins and labour
Rent arrears (to 4 May 2026	$1,578.57	Rent arrears (to 4 May 2026
Water rates	$70.63	Water rates
Cleaning: including carpet cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning: including carpet cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$471.25	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement: living room	$218.50	Lock/key replacement: living room
Repairs: wall and door reparis and painting	$529.00	Repairs: wall and door reparis and painting
Window repairs: back door glazing	$287.50	Window repairs: back door glazing
Repairs: replacement back door	$1,121.25	Repairs: replacement back door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,213.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,213.70

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] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $3,213.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 28 April 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal tried unsuccessfully to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant had been properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed they were no longer seeking termination of the tenancy. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 18 July 2025 with the fixed term due to expire on 21 July 2026.
The property was sold and a new owner took possession on 18 March 2026.
The tenant vacated the property and the landlord took possession of the premises on 4 May 2026.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which proved the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,578.57. The amount claimed is ordered.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks payment of outstanding water rates totalling $70.63. Water rates bills, tenant invoices and a tenant invoices document were produced to prove the amount claimed.
The Tribunal is satisfied the amount claimed was owing at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 “Act”).

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs dated 17 July 2025 to prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. Having reviewed the report I find that: a. The property was unfurnished and reasonably clean and tidy. b. The lawns and gardens were tidy. c. The garage was empty and provided in a clean and tidy condition. d. Bathroom - there was evidence of repaired wall damage behind the door. e. Bedroom 1 - there was signs of wear and tear on the walls and scribble marks and chips out of the door. f. Bedroom 2 - the carpets were stained with white marks. There were scuff marks and damage to the walls in the wardrobe and some of the walls and the door. g. Bedroom 3 – there were white marks and a large brown stain on the carpet. The paint was showing signs of wear and tear, with some scuff marks on the walls and chips out of the wardrobe door. h. Hallway – the door was chipped and missing paint and there were white marks on the carpet. i. Kitchen – the paint on the cupboards was showing signs of wear and tear with areas of missing paint and scratch marks. The back door had damage at the top of the frame near the deadbolt, and the ceiling was marked. j. Dining room – there were scuff marks and missing paint on the architraves, the ceiling had fly spots, the carpet was marked, and the curtains were dirty. k. Laundry – there were scuff marks on the walls and a stain on the paint work under the windowsill. l. Lounge – there were stains and marks on the carpet and scuff marks on the walls. The front door had missing paint. m. Toilet – there was an area of repaired wall damage behind the door.

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

The Tribunal was provided with an end of tenancy inspection report dated 4 May 2026. Having reviewed this report I am satisfied that: a. Rubbish inside the property - there were numerous bags of rubbish, furniture, bedding, toys, appliances, kitchen equipment and utensils, cleaning materials, a bong, chilly bin, decorations, Christmas tree, toiletries, shoes, and clothing left inside the property. b. Furniture and rubbish left in the garage - the garage had not been emptied and contained at least two three-seater couches, a coffee table, multiple skateboards, a very large black box, and multiple black sacks of rubbish. c. Lawns and gardens - the grass was long and over grown and weeds were growing in the paths and garden. d. Rubbish left outside - a kayak, couch, chair, BBQ, children’s toys, a cage, and various other black sacks of rubbish were left outside the property. e. Damage to the premises - the back door was boarded up. There was a large square hole cut into the wall in the lounge. There was one large square and one large rectangular hole cut into the walls in bedroom two. f. Condition of the interior of the property: i. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped. ii. The kitchen, including oven, sink, benchtop, and cupboards had not been wiped clean. iii. The bathroom, including vanity, sink and shower tub had not been cleaned. iv. The toilet had not been cleaned. v. There was obvious marks on some of the walls and doors that required wiping down.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks cleaning and carpet cleaning costs totalling $483.00 (including GST) after paying a contractor to clean the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant failed clean the property when they vacated the premises and, as a result, it required a “full clean” to bring the kitchen and bathroom up to a reasonable standard and to remove scuff marks and finger prints from surfaces. The landlord also claimed there was a persuasive dog odour present which required the carpets to undergo a deep dry vacuum and odour treatment.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind or underneath appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this extra level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the property was not cleaned at the end of the tenancy with visible dirt and grime. The cleaning costs claimed are proportionate to the work needed and the claim is ordered in full.

Did the tenant leave the lawns and gardens reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks the following lawn mowing and gardening costs: a) $40.00 – the sum paid to the new tenants to mow the front half of the section at the commencement of their tenancy. b) $431.25 – the amount quoted to mow the lawns.
The landlord said their lawn mowing contractor refused to mow the lawns until all of the dog waste and rubbish had been removed. As a result, when the new tenants moved into the property the lawns were overgrown. The new tenants agreed to remove the dog waste and mow the front half of the section in exchange for a $40.00 credit on their rent account. This has amount has been credited to the new tenants.
The landlord said the lawns have not yet been professionally mown as they are waiting on compensation to be ordered by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs and I find the tenant failed to return the lawns in a tidy condition. Given the length of the lawn and arrangements made with the new tenants I find the amounts claimed reasonable and that it what is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $1,426.00 (including GST) after paying for two nine cubic meter skip bins and labour costs to collect and dump all remaining items left at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant left behind a significant amount of rubbish, household items and furniture that needed to be removed and dumped. The costs claimed are entirely proportionate to the work that was required and the claim is ordered in full.

Did the tenant damage the lock?

The landlord seeks compensation of $218.50 (including GST) after paying a contractor to replace the lock on the exterior lounge door.
I find that the exterior lounge door lock was removed during the tenancy and the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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 where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Did the tenant damage the walls?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $529.00 (including GST) for the costs of wall repairs in the lounge and bedroom two. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy condition of the property and I am satisfied the tenants caused the claimed wall damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Given the precise cuts I find the damage was caused intentionally, this means the tenant is liable for the full repair costs and that is what is ordered.

Did the tenant damage the rear door glazing?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $287.50 (including GST) after paying a contractor to repair broken window glazing in the back door. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
Having considered the evidence, including photographs of the damaged door, I am satisfied the window glazing was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This damage cannot be anything other than careless or intentional. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs.

Did the tenant damage the rear door?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $1,121.25 to replace the back door. A quote in the amount claimed was provided. The landlord said that after the glass was replaced the boards covering the glazing were removed and they discovered the door had been split by the lock. The location of the damage means the door cannot be repaired and needs to be replaced. At the date of hearing the landlord said the door had not been replaced but temporarily secured. The landlord is waiting for compensation to be ordered before completing the repairs.
I have been able to properly compare and contrast the condition of the back door at the beginning and end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the door has been extensively damaged by the tenants and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Given the location and extent of the damage I am satisfied it was caused intentionally. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs, and that is what is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of painting the kitchen cupboards?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $299.00 (including GST) after painting the kitchen cupboards with one coat of white paint following the end of the tenancy. The landlord submits the kitchen cupboards were scratched by the tenant’s dog and required remediation prior to reletting.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the kitchen cupboards at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The paint work on the kitchen cupboards was in poor condition with chips and scratches at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord conceded this at the hearing. On that basis I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant is liable for the damage and the associated repair cost. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacement window blinds?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $718.75 (including GST) for roller blind replacements in the living room, bedroom thee, laundry, and kitchen.
The landlord that at the end of the tenancy the curtains were so dirty they could not be cleaned and needed to be replaced.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs. The pre-tenancy photographs show the property had net curtains that were either dirty or tied up, meaning the Tribunal could not assess their condition. The end of tenancy photographs are insufficiently clear to prove a further deterioration of the condition of the curtains. Based on the evidence provided I am not satisfied the landlord has established the claim and it is dismissed. Other matters
The bond is refunded to the landlord in full.
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496433 — net $3,213.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: 2 x 9 cubic meter skip bins and labour	$1,426.00	Rubbish removal: 2 x 9 cubic meter skip bins and labour
Rent arrears (to 4 May 2026	$1,578.57	Rent arrears (to 4 May 2026
Water rates	$70.63	Water rates
Cleaning: including carpet cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning: including carpet cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$471.25	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement: living room	$218.50	Lock/key replacement: living room
Repairs: wall and door reparis and painting	$529.00	Repairs: wall and door reparis and painting
Window repairs: back door glazing	$287.50	Window repairs: back door glazing
Repairs: replacement back door	$1,121.25	Repairs: replacement back door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,213.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,213.70

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] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $3,213.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 28 April 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal tried unsuccessfully to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant had been properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed they were no longer seeking termination of the tenancy. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 18 July 2025 with the fixed term due to expire on 21 July 2026.
The property was sold and a new owner took possession on 18 March 2026.
The tenant vacated the property and the landlord took possession of the premises on 4 May 2026.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which proved the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,578.57. The amount claimed is ordered.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks payment of outstanding water rates totalling $70.63. Water rates bills, tenant invoices and a tenant invoices document were produced to prove the amount claimed.
The Tribunal is satisfied the amount claimed was owing at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 “Act”).

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs dated 17 July 2025 to prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. Having reviewed the report I find that: a. The property was unfurnished and reasonably clean and tidy. b. The lawns and gardens were tidy. c. The garage was empty and provided in a clean and tidy condition. d. Bathroom - there was evidence of repaired wall damage behind the door. e. Bedroom 1 - there was signs of wear and tear on the walls and scribble marks and chips out of the door. f. Bedroom 2 - the carpets were stained with white marks. There were scuff marks and damage to the walls in the wardrobe and some of the walls and the door. g. Bedroom 3 – there were white marks and a large brown stain on the carpet. The paint was showing signs of wear and tear, with some scuff marks on the walls and chips out of the wardrobe door. h. Hallway – the door was chipped and missing paint and there were white marks on the carpet. i. Kitchen – the paint on the cupboards was showing signs of wear and tear with areas of missing paint and scratch marks. The back door had damage at the top of the frame near the deadbolt, and the ceiling was marked. j. Dining room – there were scuff marks and missing paint on the architraves, the ceiling had fly spots, the carpet was marked, and the curtains were dirty. k. Laundry – there were scuff marks on the walls and a stain on the paint work under the windowsill. l. Lounge – there were stains and marks on the carpet and scuff marks on the walls. The front door had missing paint. m. Toilet – there was an area of repaired wall damage behind the door.

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

The Tribunal was provided with an end of tenancy inspection report dated 4 May 2026. Having reviewed this report I am satisfied that: a. Rubbish inside the property - there were numerous bags of rubbish, furniture, bedding, toys, appliances, kitchen equipment and utensils, cleaning materials, a bong, chilly bin, decorations, Christmas tree, toiletries, shoes, and clothing left inside the property. b. Furniture and rubbish left in the garage - the garage had not been emptied and contained at least two three-seater couches, a coffee table, multiple skateboards, a very large black box, and multiple black sacks of rubbish. c. Lawns and gardens - the grass was long and over grown and weeds were growing in the paths and garden. d. Rubbish left outside - a kayak, couch, chair, BBQ, children’s toys, a cage, and various other black sacks of rubbish were left outside the property. e. Damage to the premises - the back door was boarded up. There was a large square hole cut into the wall in the lounge. There was one large square and one large rectangular hole cut into the walls in bedroom two. f. Condition of the interior of the property: i. The floors had not been vacuumed or mopped. ii. The kitchen, including oven, sink, benchtop, and cupboards had not been wiped clean. iii. The bathroom, including vanity, sink and shower tub had not been cleaned. iv. The toilet had not been cleaned. v. There was obvious marks on some of the walls and doors that required wiping down.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks cleaning and carpet cleaning costs totalling $483.00 (including GST) after paying a contractor to clean the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant failed clean the property when they vacated the premises and, as a result, it required a “full clean” to bring the kitchen and bathroom up to a reasonable standard and to remove scuff marks and finger prints from surfaces. The landlord also claimed there was a persuasive dog odour present which required the carpets to undergo a deep dry vacuum and odour treatment.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind or underneath appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this extra level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the property was not cleaned at the end of the tenancy with visible dirt and grime. The cleaning costs claimed are proportionate to the work needed and the claim is ordered in full.

Did the tenant leave the lawns and gardens reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks the following lawn mowing and gardening costs: a) $40.00 – the sum paid to the new tenants to mow the front half of the section at the commencement of their tenancy. b) $431.25 – the amount quoted to mow the lawns.
The landlord said their lawn mowing contractor refused to mow the lawns until all of the dog waste and rubbish had been removed. As a result, when the new tenants moved into the property the lawns were overgrown. The new tenants agreed to remove the dog waste and mow the front half of the section in exchange for a $40.00 credit on their rent account. This has amount has been credited to the new tenants.
The landlord said the lawns have not yet been professionally mown as they are waiting on compensation to be ordered by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs and I find the tenant failed to return the lawns in a tidy condition. Given the length of the lawn and arrangements made with the new tenants I find the amounts claimed reasonable and that it what is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $1,426.00 (including GST) after paying for two nine cubic meter skip bins and labour costs to collect and dump all remaining items left at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant left behind a significant amount of rubbish, household items and furniture that needed to be removed and dumped. The costs claimed are entirely proportionate to the work that was required and the claim is ordered in full.

Did the tenant damage the lock?

The landlord seeks compensation of $218.50 (including GST) after paying a contractor to replace the lock on the exterior lounge door.
I find that the exterior lounge door lock was removed during the tenancy and the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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 where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Did the tenant damage the walls?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $529.00 (including GST) for the costs of wall repairs in the lounge and bedroom two. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare and contrast the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy condition of the property and I am satisfied the tenants caused the claimed wall damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Given the precise cuts I find the damage was caused intentionally, this means the tenant is liable for the full repair costs and that is what is ordered.

Did the tenant damage the rear door glazing?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $287.50 (including GST) after paying a contractor to repair broken window glazing in the back door. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
Having considered the evidence, including photographs of the damaged door, I am satisfied the window glazing was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This damage cannot be anything other than careless or intentional. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs.

Did the tenant damage the rear door?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $1,121.25 to replace the back door. A quote in the amount claimed was provided. The landlord said that after the glass was replaced the boards covering the glazing were removed and they discovered the door had been split by the lock. The location of the damage means the door cannot be repaired and needs to be replaced. At the date of hearing the landlord said the door had not been replaced but temporarily secured. The landlord is waiting for compensation to be ordered before completing the repairs.
I have been able to properly compare and contrast the condition of the back door at the beginning and end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the door has been extensively damaged by the tenants and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Given the location and extent of the damage I am satisfied it was caused intentionally. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs, and that is what is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of painting the kitchen cupboards?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $299.00 (including GST) after painting the kitchen cupboards with one coat of white paint following the end of the tenancy. The landlord submits the kitchen cupboards were scratched by the tenant’s dog and required remediation prior to reletting.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the kitchen cupboards at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The paint work on the kitchen cupboards was in poor condition with chips and scratches at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord conceded this at the hearing. On that basis I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant is liable for the damage and the associated repair cost. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacement window blinds?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $718.75 (including GST) for roller blind replacements in the living room, bedroom thee, laundry, and kitchen.
The landlord that at the end of the tenancy the curtains were so dirty they could not be cleaned and needed to be replaced.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs. The pre-tenancy photographs show the property had net curtains that were either dirty or tied up, meaning the Tribunal could not assess their condition. The end of tenancy photographs are insufficiently clear to prove a further deterioration of the condition of the curtains. Based on the evidence provided I am not satisfied the landlord has established the claim and it is dismissed. Other matters
The bond is refunded to the landlord in full.
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

At a glance

Award balance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the lawns and gardens reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant damage the lock?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the walls?

Did the tenant damage the rear door glazing?

Did the tenant damage the rear door?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of painting the kitchen cupboards?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacement window blinds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the lawns and gardens reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant damage the lock?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the walls?

Did the tenant damage the rear door glazing?

Did the tenant damage the rear door?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of painting the kitchen cupboards?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacement window blinds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.