What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518248 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 5518248?

Compensation: no central heating for…: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no properly installed…: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Curtain Washing: $84.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518248?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13880725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518248 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 5518248?

Compensation: no central heating for…: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no properly installed…: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Curtain Washing: $84.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518248?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13880725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518248 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5518248 — net $744.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Curtain washing	$84.00		Curtain washing
Compensation: no central heating for 5 weeks		$260.00	no central heating for 5 weeks
Compensation: no properly installed oven for 20 weeks		$540.00	no properly installed oven for 20 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$84.00	$828.00
Net award		$744.00
Bond		$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$744.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $744.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by the owner.
This tenancy ended in March 2026. Both parties have applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

There are claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy, and leave all keys. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The tenants said they left the house in a reasonable condition when they moved out on the Friday. The owners moved back in on the Saturday. The final inspection was not carried out until the Monday morning – after the owners had lived in the house for two days. The tenants said they should not have to pay for any cleaning because there is no record of how they left the house on the Friday.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The owner’s photos are taken very close up and mostly show the need for extra dusting and wiping. These are not good enough photos for me to decide if the house was left in a reasonable condition. The photos taken by the property manager do not show the condition of the house after the tenants moved out. The claim for cleaning has not been proved and it is dismissed.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning. The exit report notes that there are more marks on the carpets than when the tenants moved in. The landlord said the house was contaminated with cat hair.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not persuaded by the photos that the house was contaminated with cat hair. Animal hair is not mentioned in the exit inspection done by the property manager. The owner’s photos show stains but I have no idea if these are the same marked and stained areas noted in the ingoing intersection. The stains do not really show in the property manager’s exit photos. I am not persuaded the tenants caused stains or left animal hair so this claim is dismissed.
The claim for the cost of washing the curtains is proved and allowed. The tenants agree they took the curtains down at the start of the tenancy, folded them up, and left them for the owner to install at the end of the tenancy. I find the tenants should have hung the curtains when they left, and it was reasonable for the landlord to wash them after storage. The amount claimed is reasonable.
Tenants are required to leave the keys at the end of the tenancy. They said they left the key in the back door when they moved out. The owners said the back door key was missing. The owners had been there for two days when the property manager carried out the final inspection. I find the landlord has not proved the tenants took the back door key. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement light bulbs. The ingoing inspection does not show that all the lights bulbs were working when the tenancy started. This claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for the cost of repairs. 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 tenants 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.
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.
There is a claim for repairs to the back of the door to bedroom four. The landlord has proved there was some damage to the door during the tenancy. I am not sure from the photos that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing the cistern for the downstairs toilet. The landlord has proved there was damage during the tenancy. The toilet is very old so I am not persuaded the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairs to a balcony roof. The landlord has proved there was damage during the tenancy. I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants said they only noticed the damage when they moved out but there was a big storm in February and the damage probably happened then. The landlord said the hole would have been much bigger if debris landed on the roof in a storm, and said it was more likely to be caused the tenants’ son. I fin the possibility the damage happened during the big storm in February has to be taken into account. I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage. This means the claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

It is agreed evidence that the central heating stopped working at the start of the tenancy. The tenants also claim that they could not use the oven for 20 weeks. They have asked for compensation. Section 45 RTA requires landlords to maintain and repair the house – including the appliances – in a reasonable condition. These are the tenants’ claims to prove.
The tenants said they were very cold for the five weeks the central heating was broken. They said they tried to keep warm using the open fires but this was not satisfactory. The landlord said there were other heating options and they attended to the central heating repair promptly. I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for a house with central heating and there was [The party]. The landlord should pay compensation. I note this was a very large house and most of the house could still be used as usual even when the central heating was out. I find $50 a week to be a fair amount for the five weeks.
The tenants said they had 20 weeks when the oven in the kitchen was either not working or temporarily attached in a way that did not feel safe to use. The landlord said the oven was safe to use. I have seen photos and it seems reasonable to me that the tenants did not want to use the oven until it was properly installed. It also seems most likely to me that the oven was not installed until 14 November 2025. I find there was a loss of amenity for 20 weeks. I allow compensation in the amount of $27 a week. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords pay compensation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5518248 — net $744.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Curtain washing	$84.00		Curtain washing
Compensation: no central heating for 5 weeks		$260.00	no central heating for 5 weeks
Compensation: no properly installed oven for 20 weeks		$540.00	no properly installed oven for 20 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$84.00	$828.00
Net award		$744.00
Bond		$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$744.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $744.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by the owner.
This tenancy ended in March 2026. Both parties have applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

There are claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy, and leave all keys. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The tenants said they left the house in a reasonable condition when they moved out on the Friday. The owners moved back in on the Saturday. The final inspection was not carried out until the Monday morning – after the owners had lived in the house for two days. The tenants said they should not have to pay for any cleaning because there is no record of how they left the house on the Friday.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The owner’s photos are taken very close up and mostly show the need for extra dusting and wiping. These are not good enough photos for me to decide if the house was left in a reasonable condition. The photos taken by the property manager do not show the condition of the house after the tenants moved out. The claim for cleaning has not been proved and it is dismissed.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning. The exit report notes that there are more marks on the carpets than when the tenants moved in. The landlord said the house was contaminated with cat hair.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not persuaded by the photos that the house was contaminated with cat hair. Animal hair is not mentioned in the exit inspection done by the property manager. The owner’s photos show stains but I have no idea if these are the same marked and stained areas noted in the ingoing intersection. The stains do not really show in the property manager’s exit photos. I am not persuaded the tenants caused stains or left animal hair so this claim is dismissed.
The claim for the cost of washing the curtains is proved and allowed. The tenants agree they took the curtains down at the start of the tenancy, folded them up, and left them for the owner to install at the end of the tenancy. I find the tenants should have hung the curtains when they left, and it was reasonable for the landlord to wash them after storage. The amount claimed is reasonable.
Tenants are required to leave the keys at the end of the tenancy. They said they left the key in the back door when they moved out. The owners said the back door key was missing. The owners had been there for two days when the property manager carried out the final inspection. I find the landlord has not proved the tenants took the back door key. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement light bulbs. The ingoing inspection does not show that all the lights bulbs were working when the tenancy started. This claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for the cost of repairs. 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 tenants 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.
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.
There is a claim for repairs to the back of the door to bedroom four. The landlord has proved there was some damage to the door during the tenancy. I am not sure from the photos that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing the cistern for the downstairs toilet. The landlord has proved there was damage during the tenancy. The toilet is very old so I am not persuaded the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairs to a balcony roof. The landlord has proved there was damage during the tenancy. I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants said they only noticed the damage when they moved out but there was a big storm in February and the damage probably happened then. The landlord said the hole would have been much bigger if debris landed on the roof in a storm, and said it was more likely to be caused the tenants’ son. I fin the possibility the damage happened during the big storm in February has to be taken into account. I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage. This means the claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

It is agreed evidence that the central heating stopped working at the start of the tenancy. The tenants also claim that they could not use the oven for 20 weeks. They have asked for compensation. Section 45 RTA requires landlords to maintain and repair the house – including the appliances – in a reasonable condition. These are the tenants’ claims to prove.
The tenants said they were very cold for the five weeks the central heating was broken. They said they tried to keep warm using the open fires but this was not satisfactory. The landlord said there were other heating options and they attended to the central heating repair promptly. I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for a house with central heating and there was [The party]. The landlord should pay compensation. I note this was a very large house and most of the house could still be used as usual even when the central heating was out. I find $50 a week to be a fair amount for the five weeks.
The tenants said they had 20 weeks when the oven in the kitchen was either not working or temporarily attached in a way that did not feel safe to use. The landlord said the oven was safe to use. I have seen photos and it seems reasonable to me that the tenants did not want to use the oven until it was properly installed. It also seems most likely to me that the oven was not installed until 14 November 2025. I find there was a loss of amenity for 20 weeks. I allow compensation in the amount of $27 a week. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords pay compensation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518248 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518248 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions