What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134228?

The tribunal order states: Stephanie Faye Hutton must pay Patricia Mary Ailong O'Brien $531.18

How much money was awarded in case 5134228?

Cleaning: $56.29 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Patch Benchtop: $52.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134228?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11688719-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134228?

The tribunal order states: Stephanie Faye Hutton must pay Patricia Mary Ailong O'Brien $531.18

How much money was awarded in case 5134228?

Cleaning: $56.29 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Patch Benchtop: $52.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134228?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11688719-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Hadfield Street, Patea, Patea 4520 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134228 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134228 — net $531.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: General and carpet cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning: General and carpet cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire	$56.29	Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire
Keys and door glass replacement	$750.78	Keys and door glass replacement
Replacement tap	$44.61	Replacement tap
Patch benchtop	$52.50	Patch benchtop
Wall damage in lounge repair	$50.00	Wall damage in lounge repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$531.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$531.18

Order

Stephanie Faye Hutton must pay Patricia Mary Ailong O'Brien $531.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 (3064975-002) to Patricia Mary Ailong O'Brien immediately.
The landlord’s claims for bulbs, curtain rail and oven are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing with a support person. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord seeks various items of compensation following the end of the tenancy which began on 18 May 2020 and ended in December 2024. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. End of tenancy obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning costs – General cleaning and carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement for 55 hours of general cleaning at $35 per hour.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
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 consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The difficulty here is that the landlord’s evidence was limited to a very small number of photographs taken close up to show the cleanliness level of the property at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the close up photographs provided, including limited photographs of the carpet only in specific limited rooms, showed specific areas that were not reasonably clean and tidy. However, the photographs by no means were anything near sufficient evidence to justify the 55 hours of cleaning sought or the extent of the Rug Doctor hire sought.
Based on the very limited photographs available I award the landlord $150 in labour for general cleaning costs and carpet cleaning labour. I also award the landlord $56.29 for the hire of a Rug Doctor on one occasion (the bond of $50 should not be claimed and awarded). I am not satisfied that the landlord sufficiently proved that the carpets needed to be cleaned more than once to return them to a reasonably clean level, so I have only awarded one of the hire costs. Light bulbs
The landlord says that the tenant did not replace 4 heat lamp bulbs and did not replace 8 LED bulbs.
The landlord gave evidence that the lights were all working at the outset of the tenancy.
Prior decisions of the Tribunal have awarded costs standard incandescent lightbulbs but have not consistently awarded costs for longer-lasting or specialist lightbulbs. Arguably, such lightbulbs could be regarded as a maintenance item which is the responsibility of the landlord (see [2025] NZTT 4999988, 4986288 for an award not being made for a LED light bulb and [2024] NZTT 4730290 for an award not being made for a heat lamp bulb).
I decline to make an order because I find these to be specialist bulbs not standard light bulbs and because I am not satisfied that their failure is anything other than fair wear and tear (over the course of a tenancy that lasted more than 4 years and the landlord could not say how old the bulbs were) so their replacement is a landlord responsibility.
This claim is dismissed. Keys
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys to the property. 4 keys are recorded as being given in the tenancy agreement. The landlord says they were to the ranch slider and the front door.
I am satisfied the landlord has proven this claim.
The cost of the replacement of the keys is contained within the same invoice as the claim for the glass so the compensation for this claim is awarded together with the claim for the glass which is considered below. Damage
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) 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.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors to be taken into account. Broken glass
On the basis of the evidence provided I accept that the front door glass was broken during the course of the tenancy.
With any damage to the property, the first question to be determined is whether the damage is the result of fair wear and tear, which would be the landlord’s responsibility to fund. As it relates to broken windows, it would be extremely unlikely that such damage would arise from fair wear and tear. Tenants are responsible for any damage caused in the premises that is the result of careless or intentional damage, caused by themselves, or somebody on the premises with their consent. Once the landlord establishes that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear, the onus then shifts to the tenant, who must prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. In this case, the tenant has not provided any explanation for how the damage occurred, and to that extent the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
The landlord has provided an invoice confirming the cost incurred for the replacement of the glass (combined with key replacement which is proven above) and therefore this claim has been established and is ordered in full.
I do not consider the landlord has benefitted from this repair and so I have not depreciated the sum sought.
The total cost for the glass and the key replacement together (established above) is $750.78. Oven
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the oven so that it had to be replaced.
I am not satisfied on the basis of the very limited evidence before me that the landlord had established that the tenant damaged the oven or that it was damaged so that it had to be replaced.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Bench top and tap
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the tap. She says that the end of the tap has come off. She says this has shortened the tap causing water to splash and this has caused a significant water damage to the bench.
Photographs were provided together with a start of tenancy report detailing that the condition of the kitchen was acceptable. Photographs of the damage were provided.
I am satisfied that the tap has become damaged during the tenancy with the end of the tap being removed. I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that the bench around the tap has become significantly damaged during the tenancy, seemingly caused by water damage. This is also more than fair wear and tear. The tenant should have alerted the landlord to any damage that was occurring (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The tenant has not provided any explanation for how the damage was done so the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
The tap was installed at the property when the landlord purchased it. She says when she bought the property it was mid-renovation and the tap looked recent. I agree that it is a modern style kitchen tap. The landlord seeks $89.23 for the tap.
The replacement cost is allowed at 50 per cent of the actual cost to account for depreciation and betterment.
I decline to make an award in respect of the labour to fit the new tap. The cost of this is unclear from the invoice provided because it is mixed with other work done by the plumber that the tenant is not liable for. The Tribunal cannot guess.
I am satisfied the landlord fixed the bench herself using a patch. A photograph was provided. She claims 1.5 hours in respect of this at $35 an hour. This is reasonable and I award this sum in full.
I have not depreciated this work as the landlord has had no benefit from this patch repair work. Wall in lounge
The landlord says the tenant damaged the wall in the lounge by allowing furniture to scrape on it. A photograph of this in the lounge was provided where a significant patch of the paint work has worn away. I accept that this level of damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided any explanation for how the damage was done so the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
The landlord claims for three hours of labour at $35, she patched the area. I find that three hours of labour is excessive for the single area as proven. I award the landlord $50 in respect of this damage. Curtain rail
The landlord says the tenant damaged the curtain rail. There was no probative evidence of this. I am not satisfied that damage is proven or that such damage would be anything other than fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has had some success across the claim and so I award the filing fee.
Name suppression is not sought so I do not need to consider this.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134228 — net $531.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: General and carpet cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning: General and carpet cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire	$56.29	Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor hire
Keys and door glass replacement	$750.78	Keys and door glass replacement
Replacement tap	$44.61	Replacement tap
Patch benchtop	$52.50	Patch benchtop
Wall damage in lounge repair	$50.00	Wall damage in lounge repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$531.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$531.18

Order

Stephanie Faye Hutton must pay Patricia Mary Ailong O'Brien $531.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 (3064975-002) to Patricia Mary Ailong O'Brien immediately.
The landlord’s claims for bulbs, curtain rail and oven are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing with a support person. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord seeks various items of compensation following the end of the tenancy which began on 18 May 2020 and ended in December 2024. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. End of tenancy obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning costs – General cleaning and carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement for 55 hours of general cleaning at $35 per hour.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
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 consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The difficulty here is that the landlord’s evidence was limited to a very small number of photographs taken close up to show the cleanliness level of the property at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the close up photographs provided, including limited photographs of the carpet only in specific limited rooms, showed specific areas that were not reasonably clean and tidy. However, the photographs by no means were anything near sufficient evidence to justify the 55 hours of cleaning sought or the extent of the Rug Doctor hire sought.
Based on the very limited photographs available I award the landlord $150 in labour for general cleaning costs and carpet cleaning labour. I also award the landlord $56.29 for the hire of a Rug Doctor on one occasion (the bond of $50 should not be claimed and awarded). I am not satisfied that the landlord sufficiently proved that the carpets needed to be cleaned more than once to return them to a reasonably clean level, so I have only awarded one of the hire costs. Light bulbs
The landlord says that the tenant did not replace 4 heat lamp bulbs and did not replace 8 LED bulbs.
The landlord gave evidence that the lights were all working at the outset of the tenancy.
Prior decisions of the Tribunal have awarded costs standard incandescent lightbulbs but have not consistently awarded costs for longer-lasting or specialist lightbulbs. Arguably, such lightbulbs could be regarded as a maintenance item which is the responsibility of the landlord (see [2025] NZTT 4999988, 4986288 for an award not being made for a LED light bulb and [2024] NZTT 4730290 for an award not being made for a heat lamp bulb).
I decline to make an order because I find these to be specialist bulbs not standard light bulbs and because I am not satisfied that their failure is anything other than fair wear and tear (over the course of a tenancy that lasted more than 4 years and the landlord could not say how old the bulbs were) so their replacement is a landlord responsibility.
This claim is dismissed. Keys
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys to the property. 4 keys are recorded as being given in the tenancy agreement. The landlord says they were to the ranch slider and the front door.
I am satisfied the landlord has proven this claim.
The cost of the replacement of the keys is contained within the same invoice as the claim for the glass so the compensation for this claim is awarded together with the claim for the glass which is considered below. Damage
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) 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.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors to be taken into account. Broken glass
On the basis of the evidence provided I accept that the front door glass was broken during the course of the tenancy.
With any damage to the property, the first question to be determined is whether the damage is the result of fair wear and tear, which would be the landlord’s responsibility to fund. As it relates to broken windows, it would be extremely unlikely that such damage would arise from fair wear and tear. Tenants are responsible for any damage caused in the premises that is the result of careless or intentional damage, caused by themselves, or somebody on the premises with their consent. Once the landlord establishes that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear, the onus then shifts to the tenant, who must prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. In this case, the tenant has not provided any explanation for how the damage occurred, and to that extent the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
The landlord has provided an invoice confirming the cost incurred for the replacement of the glass (combined with key replacement which is proven above) and therefore this claim has been established and is ordered in full.
I do not consider the landlord has benefitted from this repair and so I have not depreciated the sum sought.
The total cost for the glass and the key replacement together (established above) is $750.78. Oven
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the oven so that it had to be replaced.
I am not satisfied on the basis of the very limited evidence before me that the landlord had established that the tenant damaged the oven or that it was damaged so that it had to be replaced.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Bench top and tap
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the tap. She says that the end of the tap has come off. She says this has shortened the tap causing water to splash and this has caused a significant water damage to the bench.
Photographs were provided together with a start of tenancy report detailing that the condition of the kitchen was acceptable. Photographs of the damage were provided.
I am satisfied that the tap has become damaged during the tenancy with the end of the tap being removed. I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that the bench around the tap has become significantly damaged during the tenancy, seemingly caused by water damage. This is also more than fair wear and tear. The tenant should have alerted the landlord to any damage that was occurring (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The tenant has not provided any explanation for how the damage was done so the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
The tap was installed at the property when the landlord purchased it. She says when she bought the property it was mid-renovation and the tap looked recent. I agree that it is a modern style kitchen tap. The landlord seeks $89.23 for the tap.
The replacement cost is allowed at 50 per cent of the actual cost to account for depreciation and betterment.
I decline to make an award in respect of the labour to fit the new tap. The cost of this is unclear from the invoice provided because it is mixed with other work done by the plumber that the tenant is not liable for. The Tribunal cannot guess.
I am satisfied the landlord fixed the bench herself using a patch. A photograph was provided. She claims 1.5 hours in respect of this at $35 an hour. This is reasonable and I award this sum in full.
I have not depreciated this work as the landlord has had no benefit from this patch repair work. Wall in lounge
The landlord says the tenant damaged the wall in the lounge by allowing furniture to scrape on it. A photograph of this in the lounge was provided where a significant patch of the paint work has worn away. I accept that this level of damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided any explanation for how the damage was done so the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage.
The landlord claims for three hours of labour at $35, she patched the area. I find that three hours of labour is excessive for the single area as proven. I award the landlord $50 in respect of this damage. Curtain rail
The landlord says the tenant damaged the curtain rail. There was no probative evidence of this. I am not satisfied that damage is proven or that such damage would be anything other than fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has had some success across the claim and so I award the filing fee.
Name suppression is not sought so I do not need to consider this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134228 — Property damage at 28 Hadfield Street, Patea, Patea 4520

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134228 — Property damage at 28 Hadfield Street, Patea, Patea 4520

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions