Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5518567 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 72 Howe Street, Howick, Auckland 2014
Decided 7 Sept 2026 · Published 7 Sept 2026 · Application 5518567
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Both parties’ names are suppressed.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $230.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The bond centre must pay [The respondent/s]
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Both the landlord and the tenants have made applications.
- The tenancy ended by tenant notice on 27 May 2026. It commenced on approximately 12 May 2023. The current landlord subsequently purchased the property and has been the landlord since that time.
- Over the course of the tenancy, the landlords and tenants entered into three tenancy agreements. The tenants currently named in this order are those who remained at the end of the final tenancy and are parties to these applications. However, this does not materially affect the dispute. The tenants have otherwise largely remained the same throughout.
- The tenants seek $915.17 as reimbursement of fixed water charges and the return of the balance of their bond.
- The landlord seeks: a) $250.00 for a broken toilet roll holder; b) $402.50 for cleaning costs; c) $1,500.00 towards an invoice for painting and wall repairs; and d) a further $1,500 for gardening, repair of a toilet seat, and repair of a cabinet door.
Is the landlord liable for the fixed water charges?
- The landlord tells me that he did not know he was responsible for paying the fixed water charges. Since the tenants made their claim, he has undertaken his own calculation and accepts that the amount is closer to $930 for the period of the tenancy.
- This was discussed with the tenants at the hearing. By consent, the landlord is ordered to pay the tenants $930 as reimbursement of fixed water charges. Are the tenants liable for the landlord’s cleaning and damage-repair costs?
- At the end of the tenancy, the parties conducted a joint inspection. The tenants took photographs, which show that the property was, overall, left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The landlord has provided an invoice for $402.50 for a post-tenancy clean, together with photographs of areas of the property which the landlord says were left in an unsatisfactory condition.
- I am satisfied that some of the specific areas identified by the landlord required further cleaning. To that extent, the tenants were in breach of s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant, at the end of a tenancy, to remove all rubbish and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- However, I find that the property was substantially left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and that the extent of the cleaning undertaken by the landlord was more than was reasonably required to remedy the tenants’ breach.
- I consider a tenant contribution of $150 towards the cleaning costs, principally for cleaning the rangehood and undertaking some spot cleaning, to be appropriate. Toilet roll holder
- The landlord provided a photograph showing that the toilet roll holder required replacement. The tenants say that it broke during the tenancy in 2025 and that the matter was not raised by the landlord at that time.
- In assessing compensation for an item of this nature, allowance must be made for depreciation and for any betterment received by the landlord through replacement with a new item.
- A toilet roll holder of this type would ordinarily cost approximately $20 to $30 for the item itself, although I accept that there is also a labour cost associated with replacing a fixture mounted onto tiles.
- The IRD depreciation guide does not provide a particularly useful life expectancy for an item of this nature. However, other household items with considerably longer expected lives, such as curtains and refrigerators, are assigned useful lives of around eight years. I consider a useful life of approximately three years to be reasonable for this toilet roll holder, and that much of that useful life had already expired.
- Allowing for its residual value and the reasonable cost of installation, I consider a contribution of $50 to be appropriate. The two $1,500 claims
- There are two remaining amounts claimed by the landlord. The first is $1,500 towards painting and wall repairs. The second is $1,500 for gardening, repair of a toilet seat, and repair of a cupboard or cabinet hinge.
- A preliminary issue arises as to whether both claims were properly included in the landlord’s application.
- The landlord attended a case conference and confirmed that his application was for one amount of $1,500, as recorded and clarified in the Tribunal’s order dated 5 August 2026. At today’s hearing I again confirmed with him that he had one claim for $1,500. He subsequently clarified that he intended to pursue two separate claims of $1,500 each.
- The tenants objected on the basis that the second amount had not been identified in the application and that they were not on notice that it would be determined at this hearing. I accept that concern.
- However, for completeness, the matters covered by both invoices overlap with issues already forming part of the landlord’s claim generally. I have therefore addressed them, consistently with the approach required by s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, under which the Tribunal is to determine disputes in the manner most likely to ensure their fair and expeditious resolution, according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case. Painting and wall repairs
- The first invoice is for $3,500 and relates generally to wall repairs and painting. The landlord attributes $1,500 of that amount to damage said to be the tenants’ responsibility.
- The specific matters relied upon include: a) a bathroom door which had swollen, apparently because of moisture; b) damage to the top of a wardrobe door, which had been repaired by the tenants using adhesive tape and for which they accept some responsibility; and c) holes in the walls caused by screws or nails, apparently used to hang items.
- I accept that the landlord was entitled to some compensation for reinstatement of the damaged wardrobe door. The tenants also accepted this. I also accept that some contribution was appropriate for the nail holes and other minor wall damage.
- However, a substantial proportion of the work undertaken amounted either to fair wear and tear or to improvement of the premises, giving rise to significant betterment for the landlord.
- The landlord says that the bathroom door swelled because the tenants did not use the bathroom extractor fan sufficiently. I do not accept that this has been established.
- The tenants say that they did use the fan. The landlord referred to one occasion when he visited the property and observed mould. The tenants provided evidence that, when the landlord raised the issue, they promptly purchased the product he recommended and wiped down the affected area, which resolved the problem.
- Mould and moisture can occur in residential premises and require ongoing management. The presence of mould, without more, does not establish that the tenants failed to use the extractor fan. Nor am I satisfied that the swelling of a bathroom or toilet door from ordinary moisture exposure establishes careless or intentional damage by the tenants. In the circumstances, I regard that deterioration as fair wear and tear for which the landlord is responsible.
- Taking into account the damage for which the tenants do bear responsibility, together with depreciation and the substantial betterment resulting from the wider renovation work, I consider a contribution of $300 towards the painting and wall-repair invoice to be appropriate. Gardening, toilet seat and cabinet hinge
- The second $1,500 invoice relates to gardening work, repair of a toilet seat, and repair of a cabinet hinge.
- The landlord says this work was commissioned after Kāinga Ora inspected the property in connection with a new tenancy, several weeks after the tenants’ tenancy had ended.
- The landlord has provided photographs showing grass that is patchy but mown. The tenants had also maintained a vegetable garden. The landlord points to some eggshells and other minor garden debris.
- In newer subdivisions, lawns which have not become fully established can remain patchy unless significant work is undertaken to establish them. In any event, there is no satisfactory evidence before me establishing the condition of the lawn at the commencement of this tenancy.
- I do accept that some minor garden debris should have been removed. To that limited extent, the tenants did not fully comply with their obligation under s 40(1)(e)(iii) to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, what was reasonably required was essentially for someone to rake the garden, collect the remaining debris and place it in a bin.
- I therefore consider $100 to be an appropriate contribution towards the gardening cost.
- The landlord also claims for the toilet seat and a broken cabinet hinge. These are items which deteriorate and may fail through ordinary use over time. Their useful lives are limited. Taking into account depreciation, the nature of the items, and the evidence available, I consider a further total contribution of $100 towards the toilet seat and cabinet hinge to be fair.
- I also accept the tenants’ submission that the amounts charged in the invoices from Manukau Renovations and Maintenance Limited appear questionable and excessive when compared with the scope of the work undertaken.
- For example, $250 was charged for replacement of the toilet roll holder. The landlord says that replacement screws were required. However, wall-mounted toilet roll holders of this kind commonly attach to a mounting base, and replacement can often be undertaken without replacing the entire fixing arrangement. On the evidence before me, it is unclear why replacement of this item reasonably cost $250.
- Similarly, a charge of $1,500 for the gardening work, toilet-seat repair and replacement or repair of a single cabinet hinge appears manifestly excessive for the work described and pictured. Filing fees and suppression
- Both parties have made applications, and both have achieved some measure of success. In those circumstances, each party will bear their own filing fee.
- Both parties also applied for suppression. Given the circumstances of the proceeding and that each party has had some success, I grant both applications for suppression.