What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212296?

The tribunal order states: Ebony Manawa Morton to pay David Stanley Boulton $1,113.39 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5212296?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $11.94 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Sink And Vanity/Cabinet: $796.97 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $19.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212296?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212296?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12290496-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212296?

The tribunal order states: Ebony Manawa Morton to pay David Stanley Boulton $1,113.39 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5212296?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $11.94 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Sink And Vanity/Cabinet: $796.97 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $19.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212296?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212296?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12290496-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Dampier Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212296 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212296 — net $1,113.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$97.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$11.94	Light bulbs/batteries
Replace smoke alarms	$19.98	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: Bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet	$796.97	Repairs: Bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,113.39
Bond	$1,605.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,113.39

Order

Ebony Manawa Morton to pay David Stanley Boulton $1,113.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,605.00 (5616823-004) immediately apportioned as follows: David Stanley Boulton: $1,113.39 Ebony Manawa Morton: $491.61

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 20 August 2025. The tenant did not.
The tenancy began on 2 March 2022 and ended on 19 July 2024. The landlord claims the tenant left the premises in a hurry and did not clean them. The landlord also claims the tenant did not return all chattels and damaged the premises.
The issues I must determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy? c. Did the tenant return all chattels at the end of the tenancy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The law

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Analysis
The landlord only provided 13 photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Of these, only 6 relate to the landlord’s claim the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. No photographs of the rooms taken at a wide angle were submitted. This makes it difficult for me to assess the overall state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence the tenant left the premises in a hurry to attend to their sick mother. Whilst the tenant removed all of their belongings, the landlord claims the tenant did not attempt any cleaning. The landlord gave evidence the floors were not vacuumed or mopped, surfaces were not wiped down and the kitchen and bathroom were not cleaned.
A close up photograph of the bathroom sink shows it in a dirty condition and the invoice from the carpet cleaner notes there was chewing gum on the carpet. This evidence supports the landlord’s claim that little effort was made to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for general cleaning of $97.50 is granted, together with their claim for $160.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $235.00 to professionally clean the oven and hob is dismissed. The photographs of the oven and hob taken at the end of the tenancy do not support the claim that professional cleaning of these areas 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. was required. The sides and floor of the oven do not appear very dirty. Similarly, the metal trays in the oven are not particularly dirty. The hob has a mark on it, but I consider this mark to most likely be the result of fair wear and tear from everyday use of pots and pans. It is not a cleanliness issue and a tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 7
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $17.30 for the purchase of “Drano”, a product used to unclog drains is also dismissed. This tenancy was two years long. It is reasonably foreseeable that drains may become clogged as a result of everyday use over time. No evidence was submitted to suggest the tenant had used the drains in an unreasonable manner. I consider the clogged drain to most likely be the result of fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for.

Did the tenant return all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave in or at the premises all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 8 Analysis
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
The landlord gave evidence that lightbulbs were provided in the bathroom at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord submitted a receipt for $11.94 for the purchase of replacement lightbulbs in the bathroom.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $11.94.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

The law

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 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(v). damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 10
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). 11
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). 12 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 13
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 applied to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 14
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. 15
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage that occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken smoke alarms:$19.98 b. Missing doorknob:$33.88 c. Broken shower doorhandle:$12.19 d. Broken bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet: $1,138.52 e. Marks to the walls:$150.00
I deal with each issue individually below. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 10 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 15 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Broken smoke alarm
The landlord claims the smoke alarm was detached from the ceiling at the end of the tenancy and the holder was broken. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the smoke alarm was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a receipt for $19.98 for the purchase of a new smoke alarm. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Missing doorknob
The landlord claims the doorknob in the hallway door was present at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. No photographs were submitted however, I accept the landlord’s evidence in the absence of anything to contrary.
The landlord gave evidence the hallway door is approximately 15 years old. Given its age, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $33.88 is dismissed. Broken shower doorhandle
The landlord gave evidence the shower doorhandle was in working order at the beginning of the tenancy and broken at the end. No photographs were submitted however, I accept the landlord’s evidence in the absence of anything to contrary.
The landlord gave evidence the shower is approximately 15 years old.
A shower is generally used at least once every day.
Considering the age of the shower and frequency of use over the past 15 years, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the doorhandle exceeds fair wear and tear.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $12.19 is dismissed. Broken bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet
The landlord submitted a photograph of the sink and vanity/cabinet in the bathroom taken at the end of the tenancy. There is a large crack in the door and a drawer is missing entirely. Inside the sink, a substance akin to resin is apparent.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the bathroom sin and vanity/cabinet taken at the beginning of the tenancy but gave evidence it was in good condition and free from any damage. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord claims the substance akin to resin could not be removed from cleaning and the sink needed to be replaced. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord seeks compensation of $1,138.52 to replace the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet. This cost includes installation by a plumber and builder. The landlord submitted invoices totalling this amount.
I consider there needs to be an adjustment for betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and must not be any better or worse off.
The landlord gave evidence the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet was approximately 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. Any adjustment for betterment and depreciation must be more than nominal, considering the age of the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet. I consider an adjustment of 30% to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet is granted for $796.97. Marks to the walls
The landlord claims the walls incurred small marks and scratches during the tenancy, which were painted over at the end.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the walls and I consider small marks and scratches to be consistent with fair wear and tear, rather than careless or intentional damage.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $150.00 is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212296 — net $1,113.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$97.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$11.94	Light bulbs/batteries
Replace smoke alarms	$19.98	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: Bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet	$796.97	Repairs: Bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,113.39
Bond	$1,605.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,113.39

Order

Ebony Manawa Morton to pay David Stanley Boulton $1,113.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,605.00 (5616823-004) immediately apportioned as follows: David Stanley Boulton: $1,113.39 Ebony Manawa Morton: $491.61

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 20 August 2025. The tenant did not.
The tenancy began on 2 March 2022 and ended on 19 July 2024. The landlord claims the tenant left the premises in a hurry and did not clean them. The landlord also claims the tenant did not return all chattels and damaged the premises.
The issues I must determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy? c. Did the tenant return all chattels at the end of the tenancy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The law

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Analysis
The landlord only provided 13 photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Of these, only 6 relate to the landlord’s claim the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. No photographs of the rooms taken at a wide angle were submitted. This makes it difficult for me to assess the overall state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence the tenant left the premises in a hurry to attend to their sick mother. Whilst the tenant removed all of their belongings, the landlord claims the tenant did not attempt any cleaning. The landlord gave evidence the floors were not vacuumed or mopped, surfaces were not wiped down and the kitchen and bathroom were not cleaned.
A close up photograph of the bathroom sink shows it in a dirty condition and the invoice from the carpet cleaner notes there was chewing gum on the carpet. This evidence supports the landlord’s claim that little effort was made to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for general cleaning of $97.50 is granted, together with their claim for $160.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $235.00 to professionally clean the oven and hob is dismissed. The photographs of the oven and hob taken at the end of the tenancy do not support the claim that professional cleaning of these areas 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. was required. The sides and floor of the oven do not appear very dirty. Similarly, the metal trays in the oven are not particularly dirty. The hob has a mark on it, but I consider this mark to most likely be the result of fair wear and tear from everyday use of pots and pans. It is not a cleanliness issue and a tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 7
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $17.30 for the purchase of “Drano”, a product used to unclog drains is also dismissed. This tenancy was two years long. It is reasonably foreseeable that drains may become clogged as a result of everyday use over time. No evidence was submitted to suggest the tenant had used the drains in an unreasonable manner. I consider the clogged drain to most likely be the result of fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for.

Did the tenant return all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave in or at the premises all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 8 Analysis
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
The landlord gave evidence that lightbulbs were provided in the bathroom at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord submitted a receipt for $11.94 for the purchase of replacement lightbulbs in the bathroom.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $11.94.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

The law

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 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2). 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(v). damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 10
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). 11
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). 12 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 13
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 applied to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 14
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. 15
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage that occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken smoke alarms:$19.98 b. Missing doorknob:$33.88 c. Broken shower doorhandle:$12.19 d. Broken bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet: $1,138.52 e. Marks to the walls:$150.00
I deal with each issue individually below. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 10 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 15 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Broken smoke alarm
The landlord claims the smoke alarm was detached from the ceiling at the end of the tenancy and the holder was broken. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the smoke alarm was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted a receipt for $19.98 for the purchase of a new smoke alarm. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Missing doorknob
The landlord claims the doorknob in the hallway door was present at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. No photographs were submitted however, I accept the landlord’s evidence in the absence of anything to contrary.
The landlord gave evidence the hallway door is approximately 15 years old. Given its age, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $33.88 is dismissed. Broken shower doorhandle
The landlord gave evidence the shower doorhandle was in working order at the beginning of the tenancy and broken at the end. No photographs were submitted however, I accept the landlord’s evidence in the absence of anything to contrary.
The landlord gave evidence the shower is approximately 15 years old.
A shower is generally used at least once every day.
Considering the age of the shower and frequency of use over the past 15 years, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the doorhandle exceeds fair wear and tear.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $12.19 is dismissed. Broken bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet
The landlord submitted a photograph of the sink and vanity/cabinet in the bathroom taken at the end of the tenancy. There is a large crack in the door and a drawer is missing entirely. Inside the sink, a substance akin to resin is apparent.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the bathroom sin and vanity/cabinet taken at the beginning of the tenancy but gave evidence it was in good condition and free from any damage. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord claims the substance akin to resin could not be removed from cleaning and the sink needed to be replaced. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord seeks compensation of $1,138.52 to replace the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet. This cost includes installation by a plumber and builder. The landlord submitted invoices totalling this amount.
I consider there needs to be an adjustment for betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and must not be any better or worse off.
The landlord gave evidence the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet was approximately 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. Any adjustment for betterment and depreciation must be more than nominal, considering the age of the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet. I consider an adjustment of 30% to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the bathroom sink and vanity/cabinet is granted for $796.97. Marks to the walls
The landlord claims the walls incurred small marks and scratches during the tenancy, which were painted over at the end.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the walls and I consider small marks and scratches to be consistent with fair wear and tear, rather than careless or intentional damage.
For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $150.00 is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212296 — Property damage at 21 Dampier Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212296 — Property damage at 21 Dampier Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions