What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5511309 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 5511309?

Cleaning: $466.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Fob Cancellation: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Incidental Costs: $281.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $277.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $174.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $879.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $966.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5511309?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5511309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13877097-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5511309 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 5511309?

Cleaning: $466.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Fob Cancellation: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Incidental Costs: $281.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $277.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $174.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $879.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $966.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5511309?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5511309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13877097-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5511309 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5511309 — net $4,172.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$277.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$466.75	Cleaning
Carpet replacement - excess	$1,000.00	Carpet replacement - excess
Repairs	$174.23	Repairs
Blind replacement	$879.99	Blind replacement
Fob cancellation	$97.75	Fob cancellation
Television replacement	$966.14	Television replacement
Incidental costs	$281.93	Incidental costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,172.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,172.29

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] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,172.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$277.50 Cleaning$466.75 Carpet replacement - excess$1,000.00 Repairs$174.23 Blind replacement$879.99 Fob cancellation$97.75 Television replacement$966.14 Incidental costs$281.93 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,172.29

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing in Lower Hutt today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2025. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s].
The premises were new at the start of the tenancy, and are located in a unit- titled complex. The tenancy was partly furnished; the tenancy included a television, couch and bed.
The tenancy ended on 22 February 2026 (according to the date recorded on the landlords application).
The landlord considers the premises were damaged and other remedial work was needed, which is the subject of this claim to the Tribunal. I will set out the claims below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Cleaning
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the landlord’s claims in turn. Claim 1 – Locksmith
The landlord states that during the tenancy, the tenant requested that the locks be changed because she had lost her keys. The landlord changed the locks at a cost of $277.50, which is now claimed. Analysis
The obligation on the landlord is to provide keys at the start of the tenancy, and the tenant must return those at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has incurred a cost because the keys were lost and needed replacement. The tenant is liable for the key replacement costs. This is ordered in full. Claim 2 – General cleaning
The landlord states that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, and further the tenant had left goods and rubbish on the tenancy. The cost for general cleaning, including carpet cleaning and attempts to remove a stain from the mattress, was $466.75. Analysis
I have considered the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I accept that the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean state. The amount claimed seems commensurate with work that would have reasonably been needed, as shown in the photographs. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Carpet replacement
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for the cost of replacing the carpet, because of stains next to the bed. The stains could not be removed with the ‘Carpet Science’ carpet cleaning. The landlord seeks an order for $1,000.00. Analysis
I accept that the carpet was stained during this tenancy. The carpet was new when the tenancy commenced, less than one year prior. The landlord acted reasonably with trying carpet cleaning first, that did not remove the stains.
The stains are most likely careless damage, and the tenant is liable for the costs to either four weeks of rent or the insurance excess, and this claim falls within that. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 4 – General repairs
At the end of the tenancy, work needed to be undertaken including: a. Refixing the heated towel rail that had been pulled off. b. Repairing the under-sink cupboard door which was broken and taped up. c. Replacing the toilet roll holder that was missing.
The landlord claims $174.23 from these repair costs. Analysis
I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that this damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 5 - Blinds
The landlord claims the cost for replacement of a blind from the front of the ranch slider which had been ripped. The blinds were new at the start of the tenancy, and replaced, like for like. Analysis
Again I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that this is anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. For completeness, given the age of the blinds, it would not be reasonable to apply a depreciation. Claim 6 – Fob cancellation
At the end of the tenancy one of the security fobs was not returned, so the landlord seeks to recover the cancellation cost from the body corporate of $97.75. Analysis
The tenant must return all keys and other devices at the end of the tenancy. She did not do so, so must be responsible for the resulting costs. Claim 7 – Television replacement
A television was supplied with the tenancy and it was missing at the end of the tenancy. While there was a different television left in the premises at the end of the tenancy, but it did not work. The landlord seeks the replacement cost for this item being $966.14. Analysis
The tenant must return all chattels the premises were rented with. She did not do so, and therefore is liable for the replacement cost. Again given the age of the missing television, I do not apply depreciation. Claim 8 - Incidentals
At the end of the tenancy, the shower curtain and mattress protector were missing, so needed replacement. There were also missing lightbulbs, and replacement of the missing security fob. Those items total $281.93. Analysis
I accept these items were missing at the end of the tenancy, and compensation should be provided.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord seeks name suppression, and as the landlord has been wholly successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5511309 — net $4,172.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$277.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$466.75	Cleaning
Carpet replacement - excess	$1,000.00	Carpet replacement - excess
Repairs	$174.23	Repairs
Blind replacement	$879.99	Blind replacement
Fob cancellation	$97.75	Fob cancellation
Television replacement	$966.14	Television replacement
Incidental costs	$281.93	Incidental costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,172.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,172.29

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] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,172.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$277.50 Cleaning$466.75 Carpet replacement - excess$1,000.00 Repairs$174.23 Blind replacement$879.99 Fob cancellation$97.75 Television replacement$966.14 Incidental costs$281.93 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,172.29

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing in Lower Hutt today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2025. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s].
The premises were new at the start of the tenancy, and are located in a unit- titled complex. The tenancy was partly furnished; the tenancy included a television, couch and bed.
The tenancy ended on 22 February 2026 (according to the date recorded on the landlords application).
The landlord considers the premises were damaged and other remedial work was needed, which is the subject of this claim to the Tribunal. I will set out the claims below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Cleaning
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the landlord’s claims in turn. Claim 1 – Locksmith
The landlord states that during the tenancy, the tenant requested that the locks be changed because she had lost her keys. The landlord changed the locks at a cost of $277.50, which is now claimed. Analysis
The obligation on the landlord is to provide keys at the start of the tenancy, and the tenant must return those at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has incurred a cost because the keys were lost and needed replacement. The tenant is liable for the key replacement costs. This is ordered in full. Claim 2 – General cleaning
The landlord states that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, and further the tenant had left goods and rubbish on the tenancy. The cost for general cleaning, including carpet cleaning and attempts to remove a stain from the mattress, was $466.75. Analysis
I have considered the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I accept that the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean state. The amount claimed seems commensurate with work that would have reasonably been needed, as shown in the photographs. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Carpet replacement
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for the cost of replacing the carpet, because of stains next to the bed. The stains could not be removed with the ‘Carpet Science’ carpet cleaning. The landlord seeks an order for $1,000.00. Analysis
I accept that the carpet was stained during this tenancy. The carpet was new when the tenancy commenced, less than one year prior. The landlord acted reasonably with trying carpet cleaning first, that did not remove the stains.
The stains are most likely careless damage, and the tenant is liable for the costs to either four weeks of rent or the insurance excess, and this claim falls within that. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 4 – General repairs
At the end of the tenancy, work needed to be undertaken including: a. Refixing the heated towel rail that had been pulled off. b. Repairing the under-sink cupboard door which was broken and taped up. c. Replacing the toilet roll holder that was missing.
The landlord claims $174.23 from these repair costs. Analysis
I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that this damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 5 - Blinds
The landlord claims the cost for replacement of a blind from the front of the ranch slider which had been ripped. The blinds were new at the start of the tenancy, and replaced, like for like. Analysis
Again I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that this is anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. For completeness, given the age of the blinds, it would not be reasonable to apply a depreciation. Claim 6 – Fob cancellation
At the end of the tenancy one of the security fobs was not returned, so the landlord seeks to recover the cancellation cost from the body corporate of $97.75. Analysis
The tenant must return all keys and other devices at the end of the tenancy. She did not do so, so must be responsible for the resulting costs. Claim 7 – Television replacement
A television was supplied with the tenancy and it was missing at the end of the tenancy. While there was a different television left in the premises at the end of the tenancy, but it did not work. The landlord seeks the replacement cost for this item being $966.14. Analysis
The tenant must return all chattels the premises were rented with. She did not do so, and therefore is liable for the replacement cost. Again given the age of the missing television, I do not apply depreciation. Claim 8 - Incidentals
At the end of the tenancy, the shower curtain and mattress protector were missing, so needed replacement. There were also missing lightbulbs, and replacement of the missing security fob. Those items total $281.93. Analysis
I accept these items were missing at the end of the tenancy, and compensation should be provided.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord seeks name suppression, and as the landlord has been wholly successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5511309 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5511309 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions