What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4950356?

The tribunal order states: Zakyah Almousoy must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4950356?

Carpet Stain Treatment: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4950356?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4950356?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11153887-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4950356?

The tribunal order states: Zakyah Almousoy must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4950356?

Carpet Stain Treatment: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4950356?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4950356?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11153887-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 32B Westgate Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4950356 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 6, 32B Westgate Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4950356 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4950356 — net $194.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$380.00	Cleaning
Carpet stain treatment	$200.00	Carpet stain treatment
Painting	$750.00	Painting
Vanity Replacement	$695.00	Vanity Replacement
Lock/key replacement	$184.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$194.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$194.79

Claims and awards for application 4950356 — net $194.79 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet stain treatment

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet stain treatment

Painting

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting

Vanity Replacement

Amount: $695.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Vanity Replacement

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

Zakyah Almousoy must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Ammar And Mazen Almulla $194.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$380.00 Carpet stain treatment$200.00 Painting$750.00 Vanity Replacement$695.00 Lock/key replacement$184.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,236.00 Minus bond-$2,041.21 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$194.79
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,041.21 (6500026-011) to Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Ammar And Mazen Almulla immediately.
All other claims are concluded.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. Some matters were resolved at mediation, and the Tribunal must now consider the remaining claims from the parties.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement, for a tenancy commencing on 20 August 2023, due to end on 17 August 2024. The weekly rental was $695.00. The premises were new at the start of the tenancy.
There is no dispute between the parties that the tenant requested that the tenancy end early, and the landlord agreed to that. There is a difference of opinion as to why that request was made by the tenant, but that would not change the outcome of this order. The landlord states that she understands the tenant wanted somewhere larger to live, but the tenant said they wanted to leave the tenancy early because of a mouse infestation, and problems with neighbours.
The landlord set about finding a replacement tenant (this was a fixed-term tenancy), and one was found.
The evidence is that the tenant left the premises on 9 July 2024. On that date the tenant’s son sent a photograph of the keys for the premises that were left on the kitchen bench.
The landlord found a prospective tenant to rent the premises. As will be discussed further, the landlord had a range of work done at the tenancy including cleaning, repainting and key replacement, some of which were required by the prospective tenant.
Both parties filed claims with the Tribunal.
The parties underwent a mediation with a Tenancy Services mediator in September 2024, and from that the following agreement was reached: a. The tenancy was deemed to have ended as of 13 July 2024, and possession returned to the landlord on that day. b. The rent arrears were $695.00. c. The water rates were $43.79
The agreed amounts were paid to the landlord from the bond, the remainder of the bond is still in the Bond Centre.
The claims that could not be resolved at mediation were adjourned to be determined by the Tribunal, and for that a hearing was convened in Waitakere today on 2 December 2024. I record that both parties attended the hearing, and that the tenant was assisted by an interpreter for the duration of the hearing.

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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Landlord seeks orders in relation to five claims, as I will discuss shortly. The tenant has presented a defence to three of those claims, which are common, that is that the tenant did not consent to the work the landlord did with cleaning, painting and carpet stains. Given the defence is common, I will address it separately here.
In relation to the cleaning, carpet stain treatment and painting, the landlord’s position is that in order to re-rent the premises, so as to end the tenants liability for rent, this work needed to be completed. In particular, the landlord presents two reasons the tenant should pay for this work, being: a. It was necessary for this work to be completed in order to secure the prospective tenant, and if the work was not done, then the tenancy would have needed to be readvertised, and it might have taken another month to find another tenant; and b. The tenant’s son had approved the work being completed.
The position the tenant takes, is that: a. The work was not needed. b. As she was the tenant, only she was able to approve the work being completed, her son did not have the authority for that approval. c. The tenant felt forced to proceed as the landlord required. d. The tenant could have done the work herself, or had her own contractors do it.
I will consider the question of whether the work was needed, individually below.
Given this was a fixed-term tenancy, the tenancy cannot end by notice from either party. The tenancy could only end early by way of order of the Tribunal, or if the parties both agreed to an earlier termination date.
The landlord could have refused to allow the tenancy to end earlier, but I accept the landlord did not do that. Obviously what the landlord did was wholly for the tenant’s benefit. I am also minded that the landlord could have charged the tenant for their time in finding a replacement tenant but in this case the landlord elected not to do that either.
I do accept that the landlord found a replacement tenant (which was for the benefit of the Ms Almousoy), and that a ‘condition’ for renting the premises was that various items of work be completed. It was on that basis that the work was contracted out by the landlord. One way to look at this is that the cost of the work would be the price paid by the tenant for ending the tenancy early.
But even if that were not the case, I accept that the landlord undertook that work with the authority of the tenant via her son’s approval. I consider the son was acting as the agent for his mother. Ms Wu’s evidence is that during the tenancy they would only ever deal with Ms Almousoy’s son, given he spoke good English, and the tenant did not. My impression is that the son acted with the authority of his mother in communicating with the landlord, that was clear from what Ms Almousoy advised me at the hearing, that she knew what was being discussed with her son. In effect, the son was acting as his mother’s agent. Applying the usual agency law principles, an agent will normally bind person they act for.
The tenant accepts that she was told if the work was not done, that they may have missed the prospective tenancy. That suggests that the tenant was well aware there was a time urgency to complete the work, and consequences of the work not being completed to a proper standard.
The landlord states that in order to have the premises re-rented, they needed to have the premises cleaned and some damage repaired, following which a new tenant was found and took the tenancy over. The landlord states that during this process she spoke with the tenant’s son who agreed on behalf of his mother to all of the work being completed.
The tenant also stated that she could have done the work herself. While I would accept that as far as the cleaning claims are concerned, the fact is that the tenant did not do that cleaning work. As I will discuss below, the premises were not clean when returned to the landlord.
In terms of the repainting, I do not consider that would be work the tenant should do. This work was to address damage in a newly built property, and it was appropriate that the landlord undertake that work to ensure it is of an acceptable standard. But even if that were not the case, even if the tenant had got her own contractors to repaint the premises, she would have ended up with charges for that work. The repainting claim is certainly at a reasonable level, it would be difficult to anticipate that the tenant could have secured professional painters to repaint the premises much cheaper.
Overall, taking into account the above factors, I consider the landlord was correct to proceed with the cleaning, carpet cleaning and repainting work, and seeking to recover those expenses from the tenant. However I will consider whether there has been a breach for each claim below, as it is necessary to establish a breach in order to make any order that the tenant pay money to the landlord.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord’s position is that cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord seeks cleaning costs of $380.00, comprising six hours of cleaning, including to the kitchen, shower box, bathroom, floors, carpets, lights, and wardrobe. The cleaning was completed on 10 July 2024 (that is after possession had been returned to the landlord on 9 July).
The tenant’s position is that the landlord was exaggerating the cleaning needed. The tenant says that when they left the premises they cleaned it properly, but the landlord was not satisfied with that. The tenant says that they had offered to do the cleaning themselves, but the landlord would not accept that.
In response to the tenants claim she was not given a chance to do the cleaning herself, the landlord states that all landlord / tenant communications were via the tenant’s son, who spoke good English, and he approved the cleaning.
The tenant said that she felt threatened to allow the cleaning from the landlord, or they would not accept the early termination of the tenancy.
The landlord states that the replacement tenants when they viewed the premises, asked that the premises be cleaned, and if the premises were not cleaned, then they would probably not have taken the rental. Analysis
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 (s45(1)(a)), 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.
Having considered the photographs provided, my assessment is that the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The landlord’s cleaning claim is reasonable considering the work that would have been required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state.

CARPET STAIN REMOVAL

The landlord seeks $200.00 for costs of carpet stain removal. The landlord states there were two large red stains in the hallway, and it required commercial carpet stain removal.
The tenant states that she offered to undertake cleaning the stain herself.
The landlord disputes that she received an offer to do the carpet cleaning, but states that the tenant’s son approved the cleaning work to be completed. Analysis
As above, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy state. If the carpets are stained, that requirement would not be met. The carpet was new, I am satisfied that the staining occurred during this tenancy. The red stains are significant and obvious.
Finding as I do that the carpet was not returned in a reasonably clean state, the tenant is liable for the cost of carpet cleaning.
I have addressed the issues of the tenant doing the work herself above.

PAINTING

The landlord seeks repainting costs of $750.00. The landlord again notes that the premises were new at the start of the tenancy. When the premises were returned, there were widespread marks around the premises, and the landlord considers the damage is careless, given it is so widespread.
The tenant agrees that there were scratches on the walls, and they had offered to do the painting themselves. Analysis
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. 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.
In this case, I am satisfied that the walls have been damaged during the tenancy. The premises were new, and the pre-let photographs show blemish-free walls. The photographs at the end of the tenancy show widespread marks and damage to the walls throughout the tenancy. The damage is notable given tenancy was for less than one year.
The damage is careless damage at least, and the tenant is liable for this. I consider that repainting is reasonably indicated to address this damage, and the amounts claimed also seem reasonable. This claim is established and ordered in full.

DAMAGE TO BATHROOM VANITY

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the bathroom vanity. The vanity draw was damaged, and it was not possible to replace only the draw, so a new vanity needed to be installed, and the old vanity disposed of. The landlord states there was water damage to the draw surface. The landlord refers to post-let photograph, 82 and 83.
The tenant states that the damage was caused by mice.
The landlord states there was no evidence of mice infestation at the outgoing inspection. Analysis
I have set out the relevant legal considerations above.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. There is no evidence this damage was present at the start of the tenancy, I accept it was present when the tenancy ended.
There is no evidence to support the damage being fair wear and tear. I accept that the damage is likely to be the result of water exposure, almost certainly arising from water dripping or falling into the draw below the sink.
The tenant states that this damage is from mice. I cannot accept that. Other than the tenant’s oral statement of a mouse infestation, there is no evidence to support such a situation. I also cannot accept that this would be the sort of damage that mice would cause.
The damage is likely to be careless damage, and the tenant is liable for that. I accept that the landlord was not able to replace only the draw, and the amount claimed seems consistent with a reasonable vanity replacement cost. This claim is ordered in full.

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

The landlord states that the tenants did not return one of the keys for the premises, for the ‘Yale’ lock for the front door, and therefore the key needed to be replaced.
The Tenant states that all keys were returned.
In response, the landlord referred to a photograph which was sent by the tenant’s son and provided on 9 July 2024, which showed the keys on the kitchen bench, which I accept only showed 3 keys, not the 4 in the pre- tenancy photographs. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
I accept that the landlord provided the tenant with four keys to the premises. At the end of the tenancy, when the tenants returned possession, the tenant’s son took a photograph of the keys they left on the kitchen bench, and that only had three keys showing. I consider it most likely that one key (the large key) was not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Therefore the tenant is liable for that key replacement.

TENANTS CLAIMS

The original claims were from both the landlord and tenant. I note that the mediator had indicated that the tenant wished to pursue claims around the mice infestation and neighbours breaching the tenants quiet enjoyment.
The tenant was given several opportunities at the hearing to present her claims, and the only claim the tenant wanted to pursue was the return of her bond. As I explained to the tenant at the hearing, that would be decided, and the outcome of the bond release would depend on the level of success for the landlord.
Otherwise the tenant has not presented any evidence of a mouse infestation in the premises, or that her neighbours have breached her quiet enjoyment.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4950356 — net $194.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$380.00	Cleaning
Carpet stain treatment	$200.00	Carpet stain treatment
Painting	$750.00	Painting
Vanity Replacement	$695.00	Vanity Replacement
Lock/key replacement	$184.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$194.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$194.79

Claims and awards for application 4950356 — net $194.79 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet stain treatment

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet stain treatment

Painting

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting

Vanity Replacement

Amount: $695.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Vanity Replacement

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

Zakyah Almousoy must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Ammar And Mazen Almulla $194.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$380.00 Carpet stain treatment$200.00 Painting$750.00 Vanity Replacement$695.00 Lock/key replacement$184.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,236.00 Minus bond-$2,041.21 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$194.79
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,041.21 (6500026-011) to Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Ammar And Mazen Almulla immediately.
All other claims are concluded.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. Some matters were resolved at mediation, and the Tribunal must now consider the remaining claims from the parties.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement, for a tenancy commencing on 20 August 2023, due to end on 17 August 2024. The weekly rental was $695.00. The premises were new at the start of the tenancy.
There is no dispute between the parties that the tenant requested that the tenancy end early, and the landlord agreed to that. There is a difference of opinion as to why that request was made by the tenant, but that would not change the outcome of this order. The landlord states that she understands the tenant wanted somewhere larger to live, but the tenant said they wanted to leave the tenancy early because of a mouse infestation, and problems with neighbours.
The landlord set about finding a replacement tenant (this was a fixed-term tenancy), and one was found.
The evidence is that the tenant left the premises on 9 July 2024. On that date the tenant’s son sent a photograph of the keys for the premises that were left on the kitchen bench.
The landlord found a prospective tenant to rent the premises. As will be discussed further, the landlord had a range of work done at the tenancy including cleaning, repainting and key replacement, some of which were required by the prospective tenant.
Both parties filed claims with the Tribunal.
The parties underwent a mediation with a Tenancy Services mediator in September 2024, and from that the following agreement was reached: a. The tenancy was deemed to have ended as of 13 July 2024, and possession returned to the landlord on that day. b. The rent arrears were $695.00. c. The water rates were $43.79
The agreed amounts were paid to the landlord from the bond, the remainder of the bond is still in the Bond Centre.
The claims that could not be resolved at mediation were adjourned to be determined by the Tribunal, and for that a hearing was convened in Waitakere today on 2 December 2024. I record that both parties attended the hearing, and that the tenant was assisted by an interpreter for the duration of the hearing.

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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Landlord seeks orders in relation to five claims, as I will discuss shortly. The tenant has presented a defence to three of those claims, which are common, that is that the tenant did not consent to the work the landlord did with cleaning, painting and carpet stains. Given the defence is common, I will address it separately here.
In relation to the cleaning, carpet stain treatment and painting, the landlord’s position is that in order to re-rent the premises, so as to end the tenants liability for rent, this work needed to be completed. In particular, the landlord presents two reasons the tenant should pay for this work, being: a. It was necessary for this work to be completed in order to secure the prospective tenant, and if the work was not done, then the tenancy would have needed to be readvertised, and it might have taken another month to find another tenant; and b. The tenant’s son had approved the work being completed.
The position the tenant takes, is that: a. The work was not needed. b. As she was the tenant, only she was able to approve the work being completed, her son did not have the authority for that approval. c. The tenant felt forced to proceed as the landlord required. d. The tenant could have done the work herself, or had her own contractors do it.
I will consider the question of whether the work was needed, individually below.
Given this was a fixed-term tenancy, the tenancy cannot end by notice from either party. The tenancy could only end early by way of order of the Tribunal, or if the parties both agreed to an earlier termination date.
The landlord could have refused to allow the tenancy to end earlier, but I accept the landlord did not do that. Obviously what the landlord did was wholly for the tenant’s benefit. I am also minded that the landlord could have charged the tenant for their time in finding a replacement tenant but in this case the landlord elected not to do that either.
I do accept that the landlord found a replacement tenant (which was for the benefit of the Ms Almousoy), and that a ‘condition’ for renting the premises was that various items of work be completed. It was on that basis that the work was contracted out by the landlord. One way to look at this is that the cost of the work would be the price paid by the tenant for ending the tenancy early.
But even if that were not the case, I accept that the landlord undertook that work with the authority of the tenant via her son’s approval. I consider the son was acting as the agent for his mother. Ms Wu’s evidence is that during the tenancy they would only ever deal with Ms Almousoy’s son, given he spoke good English, and the tenant did not. My impression is that the son acted with the authority of his mother in communicating with the landlord, that was clear from what Ms Almousoy advised me at the hearing, that she knew what was being discussed with her son. In effect, the son was acting as his mother’s agent. Applying the usual agency law principles, an agent will normally bind person they act for.
The tenant accepts that she was told if the work was not done, that they may have missed the prospective tenancy. That suggests that the tenant was well aware there was a time urgency to complete the work, and consequences of the work not being completed to a proper standard.
The landlord states that in order to have the premises re-rented, they needed to have the premises cleaned and some damage repaired, following which a new tenant was found and took the tenancy over. The landlord states that during this process she spoke with the tenant’s son who agreed on behalf of his mother to all of the work being completed.
The tenant also stated that she could have done the work herself. While I would accept that as far as the cleaning claims are concerned, the fact is that the tenant did not do that cleaning work. As I will discuss below, the premises were not clean when returned to the landlord.
In terms of the repainting, I do not consider that would be work the tenant should do. This work was to address damage in a newly built property, and it was appropriate that the landlord undertake that work to ensure it is of an acceptable standard. But even if that were not the case, even if the tenant had got her own contractors to repaint the premises, she would have ended up with charges for that work. The repainting claim is certainly at a reasonable level, it would be difficult to anticipate that the tenant could have secured professional painters to repaint the premises much cheaper.
Overall, taking into account the above factors, I consider the landlord was correct to proceed with the cleaning, carpet cleaning and repainting work, and seeking to recover those expenses from the tenant. However I will consider whether there has been a breach for each claim below, as it is necessary to establish a breach in order to make any order that the tenant pay money to the landlord.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord’s position is that cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord seeks cleaning costs of $380.00, comprising six hours of cleaning, including to the kitchen, shower box, bathroom, floors, carpets, lights, and wardrobe. The cleaning was completed on 10 July 2024 (that is after possession had been returned to the landlord on 9 July).
The tenant’s position is that the landlord was exaggerating the cleaning needed. The tenant says that when they left the premises they cleaned it properly, but the landlord was not satisfied with that. The tenant says that they had offered to do the cleaning themselves, but the landlord would not accept that.
In response to the tenants claim she was not given a chance to do the cleaning herself, the landlord states that all landlord / tenant communications were via the tenant’s son, who spoke good English, and he approved the cleaning.
The tenant said that she felt threatened to allow the cleaning from the landlord, or they would not accept the early termination of the tenancy.
The landlord states that the replacement tenants when they viewed the premises, asked that the premises be cleaned, and if the premises were not cleaned, then they would probably not have taken the rental. Analysis
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 (s45(1)(a)), 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.
Having considered the photographs provided, my assessment is that the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The landlord’s cleaning claim is reasonable considering the work that would have been required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state.

CARPET STAIN REMOVAL

The landlord seeks $200.00 for costs of carpet stain removal. The landlord states there were two large red stains in the hallway, and it required commercial carpet stain removal.
The tenant states that she offered to undertake cleaning the stain herself.
The landlord disputes that she received an offer to do the carpet cleaning, but states that the tenant’s son approved the cleaning work to be completed. Analysis
As above, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy state. If the carpets are stained, that requirement would not be met. The carpet was new, I am satisfied that the staining occurred during this tenancy. The red stains are significant and obvious.
Finding as I do that the carpet was not returned in a reasonably clean state, the tenant is liable for the cost of carpet cleaning.
I have addressed the issues of the tenant doing the work herself above.

PAINTING

The landlord seeks repainting costs of $750.00. The landlord again notes that the premises were new at the start of the tenancy. When the premises were returned, there were widespread marks around the premises, and the landlord considers the damage is careless, given it is so widespread.
The tenant agrees that there were scratches on the walls, and they had offered to do the painting themselves. Analysis
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. 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.
In this case, I am satisfied that the walls have been damaged during the tenancy. The premises were new, and the pre-let photographs show blemish-free walls. The photographs at the end of the tenancy show widespread marks and damage to the walls throughout the tenancy. The damage is notable given tenancy was for less than one year.
The damage is careless damage at least, and the tenant is liable for this. I consider that repainting is reasonably indicated to address this damage, and the amounts claimed also seem reasonable. This claim is established and ordered in full.

DAMAGE TO BATHROOM VANITY

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the bathroom vanity. The vanity draw was damaged, and it was not possible to replace only the draw, so a new vanity needed to be installed, and the old vanity disposed of. The landlord states there was water damage to the draw surface. The landlord refers to post-let photograph, 82 and 83.
The tenant states that the damage was caused by mice.
The landlord states there was no evidence of mice infestation at the outgoing inspection. Analysis
I have set out the relevant legal considerations above.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. There is no evidence this damage was present at the start of the tenancy, I accept it was present when the tenancy ended.
There is no evidence to support the damage being fair wear and tear. I accept that the damage is likely to be the result of water exposure, almost certainly arising from water dripping or falling into the draw below the sink.
The tenant states that this damage is from mice. I cannot accept that. Other than the tenant’s oral statement of a mouse infestation, there is no evidence to support such a situation. I also cannot accept that this would be the sort of damage that mice would cause.
The damage is likely to be careless damage, and the tenant is liable for that. I accept that the landlord was not able to replace only the draw, and the amount claimed seems consistent with a reasonable vanity replacement cost. This claim is ordered in full.

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

The landlord states that the tenants did not return one of the keys for the premises, for the ‘Yale’ lock for the front door, and therefore the key needed to be replaced.
The Tenant states that all keys were returned.
In response, the landlord referred to a photograph which was sent by the tenant’s son and provided on 9 July 2024, which showed the keys on the kitchen bench, which I accept only showed 3 keys, not the 4 in the pre- tenancy photographs. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
I accept that the landlord provided the tenant with four keys to the premises. At the end of the tenancy, when the tenants returned possession, the tenant’s son took a photograph of the keys they left on the kitchen bench, and that only had three keys showing. I consider it most likely that one key (the large key) was not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Therefore the tenant is liable for that key replacement.

TENANTS CLAIMS

The original claims were from both the landlord and tenant. I note that the mediator had indicated that the tenant wished to pursue claims around the mice infestation and neighbours breaching the tenants quiet enjoyment.
The tenant was given several opportunities at the hearing to present her claims, and the only claim the tenant wanted to pursue was the return of her bond. As I explained to the tenant at the hearing, that would be decided, and the outcome of the bond release would depend on the level of success for the landlord.
Otherwise the tenant has not presented any evidence of a mouse infestation in the premises, or that her neighbours have breached her quiet enjoyment.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

CARPET STAIN REMOVAL

PAINTING

DAMAGE TO BATHROOM VANITY

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

CARPET STAIN REMOVAL

PAINTING

DAMAGE TO BATHROOM VANITY

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions