What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5499321 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $862.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5499321?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5499321?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5499321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13894265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5499321 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $862.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5499321?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5499321?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5499321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13894265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 34 Montgomery Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Tenancy Tribunal Case 5499321 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5499321 — net $862.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: damaged wall	$184.00	Repairs: damaged wall
Repairs: damaged driveway	$400.00	Repairs: damaged driveway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$862.00
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$862.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5499321 — net $862.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: damaged wall	$184.00	Repairs: damaged wall
Repairs: damaged driveway	$400.00	Repairs: damaged driveway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$862.00
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$862.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $862.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6413774-007) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $862.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,378.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have made a cross application for refund of the bond.
The claims I must decide are whether the tenants are liable for: a. Damage to the asphalt driveway; b. Damage to the lounge wall; c. Cleaning of the carpets.
The landlord stated at the hearing that she also wished to pursue a claim for her time cleaning the premises after the tenancy ended. However, this claim was not articulated in her original application and the tenants were not advised of the claim before the hearing. I note that the carpet cleaning claim was also added as a claim, but the tenants were advised of this prior to the hearing.
The tenants also advised near the end of the hearing that they wished to raise a claim for refund of extra rent paid of $30/week to the landlord for additional occupants (members of the tenants’ family) who stayed with them for 5 months during the tenancy period. However, this claim was also not set out in their cross application. While they mentioned this issue in a supporting submission document which they uploaded after filing their application, the application itself was not amended and the landlord was not advised of this claim before the hearing.
As I explained at the hearing, it is important that all parties coming to the Tribunal are fully and fairly informed of the claims they are facing prior to the hearing as a matter of procedural fairness and natural justice. It is not open to parties to raise further claims at the hearing. For those reasons, I declined to hear the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs and the tenants’ claim for a rent refund.
The tenancy started on 15 June 2024 and ended on 26 April 2026.

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 (RTA).
I am satisfied on the evidence that the carpets were stained in several places during the tenancy as shown in photos produced by the landlord. The stains are more than fair wear and tear and the tenant is responsible for the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord.
The amount ordered is proved.

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.
In this case, the landlord advised at the hearing that the insurance excess was $1,000. However, the tenancy agreement discloses that the insurance excess is $400. I consider that the insurance excess disclosed in the tenancy agreement must stand because the landlord is required by law to state the applicable excess in the tenancy agreement. See section 13A (2) RTA. Had the greater excess amount been stated, this may have alerted the tenants more appropriately to their potential liability for damages and better inform them to manage damage accordingly. That is the major purpose of the insurance statement.
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.
Where damage is proved, and items require replacement I must 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 depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan Wall Damage
I am satisfied on the evidence that marks, scuffs and gouges on the living room wall were caused during the tenancy. The tenants pointed out that the marks were caused by dining table chairs supplied by the landlord being placed too close to the wall. They argue that this is fair wear and tear. I disagree with their argument. It is irrelevant that the landlord supplied the furniture or that the landlord may have placed the items near the wall. It is the tenants who used the chairs during the tenancy and the onus was on them to ensure that the chairs were used in a manner so as not to scrape against the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless.
The landlord has obtained a quote of $920 for plastering and painting the affected wall. However, she advised that the walls were last painted in 2015, over 10 years before the tenancy ended. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of a painted living room wall is approximately 8-12 years. Therefore, I find that the paint work was likely at the end of its life and the costs should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, I consider the paintwork could reasonably be expected to last a little longer. Therefore, I award the landlord 20% of the painting costs for the unintended early repainting work, which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances. Asphalt driveway damage
Vehicle access to a carport at the premises is via a shared driveway which services two neighbouring properties. The carport for the premises is the first exit off the driveway. The neighbours’ entries are further down the driveway.
On 8 October 2025, the landlord sent the tenants the following text message:
Then on 20 November she sent the following two messages:
The text messages advise that: a new asphalt driveway will be laid; Cars will need to be parked on the street for at least 2 weeks after it is laid to give it time to settle and harden; after that it would be best if the tenants did not take their 4WD vehicle up the drive “for a while” because its heavy duty tyres could rip it up particularly when turning; and when turning on asphalt never turn the steering wheel while your car is stationary as this will cause damage.
Other than advising that cars should not be driven on the asphalt at all for the first 2 weeks after it is laid, the messages did not specify how long after that period, the 4WD should not be taken up the driveway. The landlord did not specify how long it would take for the asphalt to “settle,” “cure,” or “harden.”
At the hearing, the landlord provided a Care Guide for asphalt surfaces supplied by her contractor. She says that she supplied the tenants with a copy, but they deny this. There is also no evidence that she sent this guide to the tenants. The care guide records as follows: Car tyres: Car tyres may cause indentations and power steering can scuff the surface if the vehicle has a tight turning circle or if the wheels are turned when the car is stationary. To help avoid damage, always keep the car moving while turning. Key Timings: 2-3 days: Technically, once the surface is hardened it is ready for traffic. However, we recommend that keep off it for 2-3 days to allow the surface to cool. Driving and parking on the surface right away could cause tyre marks and other impressions you may find unsightly later on. Allowing the surface enough time to cool and harden will prevent most scarring from occurring. 6-12 months: Asphalt contains liquid that needs time to harden and cure. This curing process takes between 6-12 months, until then it will remain pliable and soft. Landlord case
The asphalt was laid on 25 November 2025. When the driveway was finished, the landlord attended to inspect it. She noticed that the tenants’ 4WD Toyota Hilux was parked in the carport. She asked why it was not parked on the street. The tenants assured her that they were not using the vehicle because it was not warranted or registered and it had been parked in the carport prior to the new driveway being laid. The landlord was satisfied with this and noted that the driveway looked fine with no marks or damage.
On 27 January 2026, the landlord received a text from the neighbours advising that the asphalt had been damaged just near the entrance to the premises. She provided photos of the damage. She questioned the tenants who advised that they had moved their 4WD slightly by backing it out of the carport, turning the wheels slightly to realign the vehicle and then parking it back in the carport.
The landlord says that they must have turned the wheels of their 4WD while it was stationary and caused the damage. The contractors have advised the landlord that the damage needs to be fixed, otherwise water will infiltrate the driveway causing deterioration. They have supplied a quote of $1,385.75 for the repair which involves applying a pave coat seal to protect the asphalt.
Initially, the tenants advised that they would pay for the repair from the bond, but they have since denied that they should be fully responsible for the damage. Tenant case
The tenants say that apart from the text messages, they were not provided with care instructions for the driveway.
The 4WD was parked in the carport when the asphalt was laid and for a further six weeks or so afterwards.
Construction cones remained on the driveway after it was laid for approximately one month. Approximately 6 weeks after the work was done, they noticed that the neighbours had started driving their cars up and down the driveway. Therefore, they assumed that it was fine for them to use the driveway, and they moved their 4WD. They reversed the vehicle out onto the driveway, turned the wheels slightly, and then drove back into the carport. The vehicle was still not warranted or registered, so they did not drive onto the road. They simply wanted to realign how it was parked. They do not think they turned the wheels while the car was stationary and did not notice the damage.
The tenants query how long they should have waited before using the driveway given there was no specific time frame given by the landlord in her text messages. They suggested at the hearing that they would be willing to pay something but not the entire cost. Discussion and findings
The advice given by the landlord is vague about how long the tenants should wait before driving their 4WD on the driveway, after the initial period of 2 weeks with her text message simply saying that they should not take their 4WD up the drive “for a while” after that.
The asphalt care instructions say that asphalt takes 6-12 months to cure, but there is no evidence that the landlord drew this to the tenants’ attention nor that she advised them not to drive their 4WD on the driveway for 6-12 months.
Given that the cones had been removed and the neighbours were using the driveway six weeks or so after it was laid, it seems reasonable that the tenants used the driveway at that point as well.
The asphalt damage was likely caused by the tenants turning the wheel of the vehicle while it was stationary, which was against the landlord’s clear advice. I find that this is careless damage. I say this because a photo of the area shows that there is not much space from the edge of the carport/concrete pad and the width of the driveway. It would be difficult to reverse and turn the wheels with the vehicle moving. However, again it was perhaps not clear how long the tenants needed to take this precaution.
The tenants could have checked with the landlord about driving their vehicle, but equally the landlord could have followed up with the tenants. Access to the driveway and the carport was part of the tenancy agreement, and if use was restricted, it is conceivable that the tenants would be entitled to some rebate for the loss of amenity. For that reason, it was in the landlord’s interests to keep them appraised about the driveway and when they could use it normally again.
Weighing up all these competing factors, I conclude that the tenants should not be held fully liable for the driveway repair costs. There was a lack of clear advice from the landlord about when they could use their 4WD on the driveway, but the tenants likely caused the damage by turning the wheels when the vehicle was stationary.
Section 85 RTA sets out the manner in which the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction and provides: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case, I consider that the tenants should pay one third of the repair costs, and the balance should fall on the landlord because she must shoulder the larger responsibility for failing to ensure that instructions around use of the 4WD on the asphalt were clear. That seems a fair and reasonable approach.
One third of the repair costs is $461.92. However, as set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, liability for careless damage is limited to the insurance excess and in this case the excess recorded in the tenancy agreement is $400. Therefore, I cannot award more than that. Orders are made accordingly. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has been partly successful with her claims and is therefore entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for suppression.
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. See section 95A(1) RTA.
In this case, I consider that neither party has substantially succeeded in the proceedings with the tenants liable to the landlord for some of the claims and the landlord being awarded less than half the amounts she claimed. For that reason, no suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5499321 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 34 Montgomery Street, Stokes Valley, Lower

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5499321 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 34 Montgomery Street, Stokes Valley, Lower

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

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