What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5506969 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 5506969?

Cleaning: $169.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $243.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit Refunded: $690.75 awarded to tenant; Paintwork: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Silicon In Shower: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $94.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506969?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13625728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5506969 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 5506969?

Cleaning: $169.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $243.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit Refunded: $690.75 awarded to tenant; Paintwork: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Silicon In Shower: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $94.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506969?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13625728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5506969 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5506969 — net $306.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$94.61		Water rates to end of tenancy
Carpet Cleaning	$169.00		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Paintwork	$400.00		ome of the marks are fair wear and tear I order the tenant to pay the amount of $400.00 towards painting. (b)Silicon in shower – the landlord claimed that the…
Repairs: Silicon in shower	$90.00		Repairs: Silicon in shower
Lounge blind replacement (depreciated	$243.75		I have depreciated the amount ordered by 25 percent and order the tenant to pay $243.75. (c)Damage to floor – the landlord claimed that there were dents to the…
Rent credit refunded		$690.75	Rent credit refunded
Total award	$997.36	$690.75
Net award	$306.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$306.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $306.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord claims for exit clean, key cutting and floor repair are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $306.61

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. The file records that both parties were sent notice of the hearing and the instructions for attending on or about 9 April 2026, so the hearing proceeded.
The tenant has applied for bond refund following the end of the tenancy and recorded her opposition to the landlord claims for costs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord proves their claim against the bond.
The tenancy ended on 25 March 2026. The landlord advised that there was a rent credit of $690.75 at the end of the tenancy which has been applied to reduce the amount owed by the tenant. .

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 25 March 2026. The landlord provided water rates invoices 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, 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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord sought the amount of $290.00 plus gst for cleaning and $169 plus gst for carpet cleaning based on a quote provided but advised that the cleaning has not yet been done.
In support of the claim the landlord provided the exit inspection photographs.
The exit inspection photographs clearly show marks on the carpet and I am satisfied the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the carpet needs cleaning. I have ordered the amount of the quote without the gst added as I must take a conservative approach when only one quote is provided and the work has not yet been done.
The amount sought for cleaning is recorded in the quote as “full exit clean of the property”.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The photographs provided show areas where the landlord may wish to do further cleaning such as some shelves and drawers in the kitchen that could do with an extra wipe but generally show a property that has clearly been cleaned at exit.
I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and required a full exit clean. Therefore, I decline the claim for cleaning.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys but provided no evidence of the cost of getting new keys cut therefore there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord claimed that the chorus box was removed but provided insufficient evidence that the tenant was responsible for this or the cost of replacement. Therefore this claim is not proved to the required standard and 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.
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.
The landlord advised that the insurance excess is $1400.00 and none of the amounts claimed exceeds this.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Damage to paintwork on doors and walls – the landlord provided an entry and exit inspection report and pointed to marks on walls and doors. Some of these marks were scuff marks or very small nicks in the walls or doors which I am not satisfied is beyond fair wear and tear for a home that was lived in for a year. There were some larger marks in particular in bedroom 3 on the wall behind where the landlord advised a television had been and I am satisfied that this is careless damage beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks $800 plus gst for the repairs based on a quote but the work has not yet been done. Taking into account that only a quote has been provided and that some of the marks are fair wear and tear I order the tenant to pay the amount of $400.00 towards painting. (b)Silicon in shower – the landlord claimed that the silicon in the shower was damaged and required repair. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and I am satisfied on the evidence that this is careless damage beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord provided a quote for the repair in the sum of $90.00 plus gst. I have discounted the gst amount as this is only a quote and order the tenant to pay $90.00 for the repair. (b)Blinds – the landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the lounge blinds and sought the cost of replacing the blinds in the sum of $325.00. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and there is a missing blind panel. I am satisfied the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and was carelessly caused. I must take into account depreciation when ordering replacement costs. The landlord advised that the blinds were two years old. The Tribunal considers blinds to have a life span of 8 years, accordingly I have depreciated the amount ordered by 25 percent and order the tenant to pay $243.75. (c)Damage to floor – the landlord claimed that there were dents to the floor but did not have evidence to prove the amount sought and did not present sufficient evidence to prove this claim. Filing fee/suppression
Because both parties have had some success with their claims and both have applied for suppression I suppress their identifying details in the order as applied for and decline to order either party to reimburse the filing fee paid by the other. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5506969 — net $306.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$94.61		Water rates to end of tenancy
Carpet Cleaning	$169.00		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Paintwork	$400.00		ome of the marks are fair wear and tear I order the tenant to pay the amount of $400.00 towards painting. (b)Silicon in shower – the landlord claimed that the…
Repairs: Silicon in shower	$90.00		Repairs: Silicon in shower
Lounge blind replacement (depreciated	$243.75		I have depreciated the amount ordered by 25 percent and order the tenant to pay $243.75. (c)Damage to floor – the landlord claimed that there were dents to the…
Rent credit refunded		$690.75	Rent credit refunded
Total award	$997.36	$690.75
Net award	$306.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$306.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $306.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord claims for exit clean, key cutting and floor repair are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $306.61

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. The file records that both parties were sent notice of the hearing and the instructions for attending on or about 9 April 2026, so the hearing proceeded.
The tenant has applied for bond refund following the end of the tenancy and recorded her opposition to the landlord claims for costs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord proves their claim against the bond.
The tenancy ended on 25 March 2026. The landlord advised that there was a rent credit of $690.75 at the end of the tenancy which has been applied to reduce the amount owed by the tenant. .

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 25 March 2026. The landlord provided water rates invoices 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, 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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord sought the amount of $290.00 plus gst for cleaning and $169 plus gst for carpet cleaning based on a quote provided but advised that the cleaning has not yet been done.
In support of the claim the landlord provided the exit inspection photographs.
The exit inspection photographs clearly show marks on the carpet and I am satisfied the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the carpet needs cleaning. I have ordered the amount of the quote without the gst added as I must take a conservative approach when only one quote is provided and the work has not yet been done.
The amount sought for cleaning is recorded in the quote as “full exit clean of the property”.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The photographs provided show areas where the landlord may wish to do further cleaning such as some shelves and drawers in the kitchen that could do with an extra wipe but generally show a property that has clearly been cleaned at exit.
I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and required a full exit clean. Therefore, I decline the claim for cleaning.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys but provided no evidence of the cost of getting new keys cut therefore there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord claimed that the chorus box was removed but provided insufficient evidence that the tenant was responsible for this or the cost of replacement. Therefore this claim is not proved to the required standard and 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.
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.
The landlord advised that the insurance excess is $1400.00 and none of the amounts claimed exceeds this.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Damage to paintwork on doors and walls – the landlord provided an entry and exit inspection report and pointed to marks on walls and doors. Some of these marks were scuff marks or very small nicks in the walls or doors which I am not satisfied is beyond fair wear and tear for a home that was lived in for a year. There were some larger marks in particular in bedroom 3 on the wall behind where the landlord advised a television had been and I am satisfied that this is careless damage beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks $800 plus gst for the repairs based on a quote but the work has not yet been done. Taking into account that only a quote has been provided and that some of the marks are fair wear and tear I order the tenant to pay the amount of $400.00 towards painting. (b)Silicon in shower – the landlord claimed that the silicon in the shower was damaged and required repair. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and I am satisfied on the evidence that this is careless damage beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord provided a quote for the repair in the sum of $90.00 plus gst. I have discounted the gst amount as this is only a quote and order the tenant to pay $90.00 for the repair. (b)Blinds – the landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the lounge blinds and sought the cost of replacing the blinds in the sum of $325.00. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and there is a missing blind panel. I am satisfied the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and was carelessly caused. I must take into account depreciation when ordering replacement costs. The landlord advised that the blinds were two years old. The Tribunal considers blinds to have a life span of 8 years, accordingly I have depreciated the amount ordered by 25 percent and order the tenant to pay $243.75. (c)Damage to floor – the landlord claimed that there were dents to the floor but did not have evidence to prove the amount sought and did not present sufficient evidence to prove this claim. Filing fee/suppression
Because both parties have had some success with their claims and both have applied for suppression I suppress their identifying details in the order as applied for and decline to order either party to reimburse the filing fee paid by the other. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5506969 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5506969 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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