What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500354 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 5500354?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; And Painting: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500354?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500354 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 5500354?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; And Painting: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500354?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5500354 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5500354. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Repairs: and painting	$300.00	Repairs: and painting
Bond	$2,780.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5500354. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Repairs: and painting	$300.00	Repairs: and painting
Bond	$2,780.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $420.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,360.00
The landlord’s claims for the damage to the benchtop and stovetop are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was part heard by me on the 11 May 2026, after which I completed an adjournment order setting out the parties’ positions on the claims.
The matter was adjourned so that the parties could file any further evidence and to give the tenant time to consider the evidence that had been filed by the landlord shortly before the previous hearing.
This was a two-year tenancy that ended on the 28 January 2026 after the tenants gave notice. The tenancy premises is a two-bedroom apartment which was built in 2022. The tenant tells me that this was their first tenancy premises in New Zealand. 1
The tenants filed their application with the Tribunal first seeking their bond together with the filing fee.
The landlord says that it has claims against the bond but that it has taken some time to get the costs of repairs together. The landlord filed its claim on the 4 May, it seeks: a. Cleaning costs of $240.00 b. Wall touch up and painting of $1121.83 c. Stove top replacement $950 plus GST. d. Replacement laminate bench top -$3813 e. The filing fee.

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy (see s40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). Reasonably clean and tidy does not mean spotless or motel or hotel standard.
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
The landlord provided a comprehensive final inspection report and photographs dated 29 January 2026.The landlord also provided the entry inspection report and photographs dated 20 December 2023. In the report completed at the end of the tenancy, it shows that the tenants have left the property in a condition that is generally reasonably clean and tidy. There are some marks on the walls, skirting boards and light switches that need to be wiped over. I also consider that the stovetop would have required additional cleaning. 1 The tenants are an immigrant family who had previously lived at another address in New Zealand but with another family.
The landlord has provided an invoice which has 6 hours cleaning at $40 per hour. A tenant is only liable for the portion of the cleaning that is necessary to remedy the breach, in other words how much time would have been taken to clean up the areas I have stated that needed further cleaning to bring them up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I do not consider that this would have taken more than 3 hours and therefore I award $120.00 for the cleaning.

Is the tenant liable for damage to the property?

The 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.
Fair wear and tear is the gradual decline in the property due to everyday ordinary and reasonable use.
In the District Court decision of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC NorthShore, TT 216/94, 30 January 1996, pages 26, 27, His Honour Judge Thorburn addressed the issue of fair wear and tear, and who has the burden of proving what or how the damage was caused. Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition. Fair wear and tear has for decades been addressed. In Taylor v Webb (1937) 2 KB (CA) 283 Scott LJ at page 302 described it in relation to a landlord/tenant relationship as: " ... That brought about by the tenant, and other persons present in or on the premises with the consent of the tenant, either unintentionally or as a normal incident of a tenant's occupation in the course of the 'fair' (or 'reasonable') use of the premises for any of the purposes for which they were let." At page 303 he said further: " ... , the tenant's user and its effect, is too plain to need argument, and is well recognised in the decided cases." The appellant in this case has significantly fallen into a misconception that a landlord's claim can easily succeed by simply proving the existence of damage during the tenancy and having the tenant therefore burdened with all of the responsibility to make the running in terms of evidence. While s 40 achieves that if carelessness or intentional damage are to be excluded as the cause, if a tenant cannot specifically explain the damage that failure does not necessarily equivocate to carelessness or intentional damage. The benchtop.
The landlord claims that during the tenancy the tenant placed something hot on the laminate benchtop causing a small hole in the surface of the laminate and another small burn mark.
The tenant does not dispute that the damage occurred during her tenancy. She says that she placed a hot item on the bench thinking the bench was marble or stone, and then it damaged the bench top. She says that she should not be liable for this as she was never told that the bench was laminate and that she could not place something hot on the bench. She also says that the landlord has not replaced the bench top, and has re rented the property without replacing it, so that shows it is not a problem.
She says that if the Tribunal finds that she is liable she should not have to pay for the whole new benchtop as it could be repaired for less cost.
The landlord has provided photographs of the damage to a benchtop repairer who has said that the once the laminate is punctured or bubbled it cannot be repaired and the whole kitchen bench must be replaced or re-laminated.
The landlord was quoted $1180.97 for a new bench top not including installation and $38083.13 including installation.
The landlord has not claimed insurance and notes that the excess would be $2500.00. This was the insurance excess amount recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has also sought another quote from another repair agent. That repairer needed further information but also noted that get a carpenter to install a tile inlet may be more economical and would stop the problem happening again.
The Tribunal has over the past few years, dealt with a number of claims for damage to benchtop caused by tenants either cutting the laminate or placing hot items on the laminate. In almost all these cases the landlord has asked for the cost of the insurance excess which is usually in the vicinity of $500.00. There have been some cases where the Tribunal has found that the tenant was liable for damaging the bench top laminate by placing a hot pan on it, and others where the Tribunal has determined that it was fair wear and tear. Each case is decided on its own facts and no two cases are identical.
Having carefully considered the evidence before me I consider that that this is a case where the damage can be attributed to fair wear and tear because of the following: a. It appears that the tenant and property manager were under the mistaken belief that the benchtop was marble as they both stated in the hearings. b. The ingoing inspection report which was given to the tenant describes the benchtop as marble. It does not describe it as laminate. c. If the benchtop was marble as described in the ingoing inspection, then the tenant would have been able to put something hot on the bench without fear of it puncturing or blistering the top. The landlord submitted that you would never put something hot on marble benchtop as it would risk scorching or marking it. While marble might scorch or mark, it would not have resulted in the whole bench top needing to be repaired. d. There is no surface on the bench top in the kitchen for a hot pan taken out of the oven to be placed except on the bench or on the glass cooktop. Consumer NZ says on its website: Don’t place hot trays or bakeware from the oven on to a ceramic cooktop – this can cause the surface to crack. e. The surface area for the kitchen is limited and, in such circumstances, I consider that the landlord should specifically draw the tenant’s attention to the fact that they cannot place any item on the bench without using a trivet or board first. Ideally, I would expect that the landlord would provide a tile or trivet to be used. f. I consider that the placement of hot items on the bench whist cooking is an ordinary use of the kitchen and cooking, and the tenant was not using the kitchen in an abnormal way. There must be a safe place for a tenant to place an item that comes out of the oven. If the bench is laminate, then this should specifically be drawn to the tenant’s attention and they should be told to use something to use tiles, trivets, rubber mats or the like to prevent blistering and holes.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the benchtop is not proven and is dismissed. The stovetop.
The landlord says that the tenants damaged the stove by causing excessive scratching and wear on the glass cooktop that could not be removed by cleaning.
The tenant says that the cooktop was already scratched. That any scratching is fair wear and tear and that the cooktop does not need replacement because the new tenants have been using it, and that there is no lack of functionality which has been caused by the tenant.
The final inspection report shows a cooktop that needs further cleaning, and I have already compensated the tenant for that.
I am not satisfied that the tenant damaged the cooktop. I consider that any damage to the cooktop is fair wear and tear because: a. The ingoing inspection photographs show a cooktop that is already scratched. 2 b. The increase in the scratches appear within the normal range with another 2 years of wear. c. The new tenants are using the same cooktop. d. The landlord has not proven that any loss of functionality is as a result of anything the tenants did.
The landlord’s claim for a replacement cooktop is not proven and therefore fails. Wall painting.
The landlord says that the tenant had dented and scratched walls. The landlord says that this damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord had the walls repaired and repainted. The landlord produced an invoice dated 10 March from its repairs which described the work as: Wall touch up- 3 coat plaster skim coat system to wall damages + sand + spot prime + 2 xtop coats.
In the exit inspection report the landlord describes the condition of all walls in each room. They are all noted as ‘general wear and tear’ some specific comments are made about each area for example a reference to gouges and tyre marks on the wall from a bike. The overall comments say “...Benchtop is damaged and walls which will get repaired at tenants cost.”
The photographs of the walls do not show any damage beyond what I would expect as fair wear and tear except for the gouge marks in the wall in the hallway, which appear to have been caused by a bike leaning against the wall. This accords with how the walls were described by the property manager in the exit inspection report.
I consider that only the gouge mark damage is careless, because it appears to have been caused by the tenant’s bike being against the wall on more than one occasion. The landlord notified the tenant of the damage in July 2025 and asked the tenant to repair. As it is careless damage then and the tenants are liable for it. I award the landlord $300 for this damage this takes into account the costs of repairing and painting the hallway wall.
I have taken into account 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 2 See photographs 633-634, 648-649 and 651. depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the end of the tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression
The parties have been partly successful and unsuccessful. As such I do not award either the filing fee but do grant both name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500354 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500354 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay for the cleaning?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions