What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5236223?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to pay from the bond:

How much money was awarded in case 5236223?

Compensation: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236223?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11756953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5236223?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to pay from the bond:

How much money was awarded in case 5236223?

Compensation: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236223?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11756953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46A Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5236223 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5236223 — net $447.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation (Damaged Vinyl	$400.00	Compensation (Damaged Vinyl
Compensation (Curtain	$20.00	Compensation (Curtain
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$447.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$447.00

Order

Bond Services is to pay from the bond: a. $447.00 to Precision Property Management Limited b. $1,713.00 to Ivan Gerhard calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Compensation (Damaged Vinyl)$400.00 Compensation (Curtain)$20.00 Filing fee$27.00 Total award$447.00 Deduction from Bond-$447.00 Balance of bond to Tenant$1,713.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord is seeking compensation for alleged damage to vinyl flooring, damage to a curtain, and costs associated with cleaning and mowing the lawns following the end of the tenancy. The Tenant disputes the claims, arguing that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy, that the condition of the vinyl was consistent with fair wear and tear over two years of occupancy, and that the curtain tear was minor and should not attract a significant cost.
The Tribunal must determine: (1) whether the Tenant is liable for the marks and damage to the vinyl, and if so, what compensation is appropriate; (2) whether the Tenant is liable for the curtain tear and the appropriate award; (3) whether the Tenant is liable for cleaning or lawn maintenance costs; and (4) the appropriate apportionment of the bond.

Is the Tenant liable for the damage to the vinyl flooring?

The Landlord claims compensation (full replacement cost) for damaged vinyl, pointing out a very dark circular mark in the laundry area, a second mark near the breakfast bar, and a third spot (stain) between the shower and toilet.
Damage to the premises caused by tenants must not be intentional or careless, otherwise they may be liable under sections 49A and 49B of the Act.
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): 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): section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Importantly, fair wear and tear is not compensable. As noted in Sharma v [Tenants], “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.” 1
The landlord carries the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage is not fair wear and tear (Sharma at [11]; s 49B(8)(a)(i)).
Further, even where damage is proven, the costs of reinstatement must be reasonable.
In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth, 2 the House of Lords confirmed that damages in contract law are fundamentally compensatory. They endorsed the principle stated by Viscount Haldane LC in British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd 3 that: 1 Sharma v [Tenants] [2021] NZTT 4294819 at [9], quoting from Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry. 2 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL). 3 British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673. “...he who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed." 4
However, Ruxley clarified that the law of damages is not rigidly confined to either the cost of cure or the diminution in value. Rather, it recognises that a genuine loss of amenity – even where financial loss is minimal or nil – may also be compensated. As Lord Mustill states: “There are not two alternative measures of damage, at opposite poles, but only one: namely the loss truly suffered by the promisee.” “...the law must cater for those occasions where the value of the promise to the promisee exceeds the financial enhancement of his position which full performance will secure. This excess, often referred to... as the 'consumer surplus' ... is usually incapable of precise valuation in terms of money, exactly because it represents a personal, subjective and non-monetary gain. Nevertheless, where it exists the law should recognise it and compensate the promisee if the misperformance takes it away.” 5
Thus, where reinstatement would be grossly disproportionate and diminution in value is minimal, it remains open to the Tribunal to award modest damages for loss of amenity, reflecting the genuine impact on the party’s enjoyment and use of the property.
Depreciation must also be considered, particularly for items such as vinyl flooring and curtains that have a limited expected life.
The Landlord’s photographic evidence shows two distinct circular impressions. One mark is significantly darker and more pronounced, displaying visible mesh texturing consistent with prolonged heavy pressure from an appliance. The darker mark also exhibits discolouration and indentation, indicating damage that exceeds what would normally be expected from reasonable residential use.
The Tenant acknowledges that vinyl is a softer surface than hard flooring and accepts that a heavy appliance, such as the washing machine, may have contributed to the wear. However, the Tenant argues that the marks arose through ordinary residential use (laundry) and amount to fair wear and tear.
While the Tenant argues that the laundry is designed to house a washing machine and that any marking was outside of their control, I do not accept that the damage evident here falls within the scope of reasonable use. A Tenant must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable damage, particularly where heavy appliances are placed on softer flooring such as vinyl. The concentrated and 4 Ibid. at 688–689. 5 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL). severe indentation and discolouration visible in the photographic evidence suggests more than ordinary wear and tear. It indicates a failure to take sufficient care, such as by checking the machine’s feet or using protective measures. The Tenant’s uncertainty about whether the washing machine had plastic or metal feet further suggests a lack of attentiveness to the potential risk.
Normal residential use presumes reasonable precautions against avoidable damage, and the type of marking present here is consistent with careless, not merely incidental, conduct.
The Tenant submits that they were not specifically warned by the Landlord to take precautions to protect the vinyl flooring. However, a Tenant’s obligation to take reasonable care of the premises arises from the Act itself and does not depend on reminders or instructions from the Landlord. It is not necessary for a landlord to warn a tenant about every obvious risk. Where a Tenant installs a heavy appliance such as a washing machine onto a soft flooring surface like vinyl, it is a matter of common sense that care must be taken to prevent concentrated pressure or damage. The duty to act reasonably and avoid foreseeable harm is an ordinary incident of the tenancy relationship and exists independently of any specific warning or advice from the Landlord.
As Viscount Haldane LC explained in British Westinghouse, the fundamental basis for compensation is to place the injured party, as far as money can do so, in as good a position as if the contract had been performed. However, compensation must reflect the pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach and be tempered by considerations of reasonableness.
In this case, while some contribution from the Tenant is appropriate, full replacement of all vinyl areas would be disproportionate. The House of Lords in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth reaffirmed that where reinstatement would be grossly disproportionate to the actual loss suffered, damages should reflect the real, localised loss rather than automatically awarding the cost of full reinstatement.
The Landlord obtained a replacement quote of $1,988.00 (including GST) for new vinyl across the kitchen, laundry, and bathroom areas using a similar semi- commercial grade product. However, the vinyl has not yet been replaced, and a new tenant is in occupation, indicating that immediate replacement is not essential.
The Tribunal confirmed in Sharma that, where damage is established but no remedial work has yet been undertaken, the appropriate measure of loss is ordinarily the diminution in value, not the full replacement cost.
It is undisputed that the vinyl was newly installed at the start of the tenancy. After approximately two years of use, and in the absence of a specific depreciation guide for vinyl flooring, it is appropriate to refer to the IRD’s General Depreciation Rates (DEP80), which suggest a five-year useful life for chattels, with a 40% diminishing value rate. 6 Using a straight-line calculation, around 40% of the vinyl’s life remained at the end of the tenancy.
Given the age and condition of the flooring, the localised nature of the damage, and fairness as between the parties, it would be unreasonable to require the Tenant to pay for full replacement. Instead, a reasonable contribution toward the diminished value is appropriate.
Taking these factors into account, I assess the Tenant’s liability at $400.00, which fairly reflects: a. that the vinyl was approximately two years old at the end of the tenancy; b. that the damage was localised but more than minor/wear and tear; c. that the damage was careless damage is; and d. that full replacement of the flooring would be disproportionate.
Having regard to the likely age of the curtain, the nature of the tear, and the limited information provided about alternative repair options, I find that a modest award of $20.00 is appropriate to fairly compensate the Landlord for the diminished value of the damaged (torn) curtain.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

The Landlord has also sought cleaning costs for areas noted during the final inspection, including fly debris on skirtings and window frames, food marks on the kitchen walls and appliances, scuff marks on walls, mould on window frames, and general dust and dirt accumulation.
Under section 40(1)(e) of the Act, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, although not necessarily spotless or to a professional standard.
The Tenant has stated that the premises were cleaned thoroughly prior to departure, and that the presence of dead flies (for example) occurred after vacating due to the delay in inspection. This is plausible given the time lapse, and the parties did not undertake a bond inspection together.
The window-sills, skirting boards, and joinery had minor build-up. While not pristine, the house has been respectfully lived in and reasonably cleaned by the departing tenant.
I am not satisfied, on balance, that the condition of the premises at the time of final inspection fell below the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard required.
Accordingly, the Landlord’s claim for additional cleaning costs is dismissed.
The Landlord is entitled to a reimbursement of the filing fee. 6 Default Chattel Depreciation
No suppression orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5236223 — net $447.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation (Damaged Vinyl	$400.00	Compensation (Damaged Vinyl
Compensation (Curtain	$20.00	Compensation (Curtain
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$447.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$447.00

Order

Bond Services is to pay from the bond: a. $447.00 to Precision Property Management Limited b. $1,713.00 to Ivan Gerhard calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Compensation (Damaged Vinyl)$400.00 Compensation (Curtain)$20.00 Filing fee$27.00 Total award$447.00 Deduction from Bond-$447.00 Balance of bond to Tenant$1,713.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord is seeking compensation for alleged damage to vinyl flooring, damage to a curtain, and costs associated with cleaning and mowing the lawns following the end of the tenancy. The Tenant disputes the claims, arguing that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy, that the condition of the vinyl was consistent with fair wear and tear over two years of occupancy, and that the curtain tear was minor and should not attract a significant cost.
The Tribunal must determine: (1) whether the Tenant is liable for the marks and damage to the vinyl, and if so, what compensation is appropriate; (2) whether the Tenant is liable for the curtain tear and the appropriate award; (3) whether the Tenant is liable for cleaning or lawn maintenance costs; and (4) the appropriate apportionment of the bond.

Is the Tenant liable for the damage to the vinyl flooring?

The Landlord claims compensation (full replacement cost) for damaged vinyl, pointing out a very dark circular mark in the laundry area, a second mark near the breakfast bar, and a third spot (stain) between the shower and toilet.
Damage to the premises caused by tenants must not be intentional or careless, otherwise they may be liable under sections 49A and 49B of the Act.
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): 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): section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Importantly, fair wear and tear is not compensable. As noted in Sharma v [Tenants], “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.” 1
The landlord carries the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage is not fair wear and tear (Sharma at [11]; s 49B(8)(a)(i)).
Further, even where damage is proven, the costs of reinstatement must be reasonable.
In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth, 2 the House of Lords confirmed that damages in contract law are fundamentally compensatory. They endorsed the principle stated by Viscount Haldane LC in British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd 3 that: 1 Sharma v [Tenants] [2021] NZTT 4294819 at [9], quoting from Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry. 2 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL). 3 British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673. “...he who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed." 4
However, Ruxley clarified that the law of damages is not rigidly confined to either the cost of cure or the diminution in value. Rather, it recognises that a genuine loss of amenity – even where financial loss is minimal or nil – may also be compensated. As Lord Mustill states: “There are not two alternative measures of damage, at opposite poles, but only one: namely the loss truly suffered by the promisee.” “...the law must cater for those occasions where the value of the promise to the promisee exceeds the financial enhancement of his position which full performance will secure. This excess, often referred to... as the 'consumer surplus' ... is usually incapable of precise valuation in terms of money, exactly because it represents a personal, subjective and non-monetary gain. Nevertheless, where it exists the law should recognise it and compensate the promisee if the misperformance takes it away.” 5
Thus, where reinstatement would be grossly disproportionate and diminution in value is minimal, it remains open to the Tribunal to award modest damages for loss of amenity, reflecting the genuine impact on the party’s enjoyment and use of the property.
Depreciation must also be considered, particularly for items such as vinyl flooring and curtains that have a limited expected life.
The Landlord’s photographic evidence shows two distinct circular impressions. One mark is significantly darker and more pronounced, displaying visible mesh texturing consistent with prolonged heavy pressure from an appliance. The darker mark also exhibits discolouration and indentation, indicating damage that exceeds what would normally be expected from reasonable residential use.
The Tenant acknowledges that vinyl is a softer surface than hard flooring and accepts that a heavy appliance, such as the washing machine, may have contributed to the wear. However, the Tenant argues that the marks arose through ordinary residential use (laundry) and amount to fair wear and tear.
While the Tenant argues that the laundry is designed to house a washing machine and that any marking was outside of their control, I do not accept that the damage evident here falls within the scope of reasonable use. A Tenant must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable damage, particularly where heavy appliances are placed on softer flooring such as vinyl. The concentrated and 4 Ibid. at 688–689. 5 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 (HL). severe indentation and discolouration visible in the photographic evidence suggests more than ordinary wear and tear. It indicates a failure to take sufficient care, such as by checking the machine’s feet or using protective measures. The Tenant’s uncertainty about whether the washing machine had plastic or metal feet further suggests a lack of attentiveness to the potential risk.
Normal residential use presumes reasonable precautions against avoidable damage, and the type of marking present here is consistent with careless, not merely incidental, conduct.
The Tenant submits that they were not specifically warned by the Landlord to take precautions to protect the vinyl flooring. However, a Tenant’s obligation to take reasonable care of the premises arises from the Act itself and does not depend on reminders or instructions from the Landlord. It is not necessary for a landlord to warn a tenant about every obvious risk. Where a Tenant installs a heavy appliance such as a washing machine onto a soft flooring surface like vinyl, it is a matter of common sense that care must be taken to prevent concentrated pressure or damage. The duty to act reasonably and avoid foreseeable harm is an ordinary incident of the tenancy relationship and exists independently of any specific warning or advice from the Landlord.
As Viscount Haldane LC explained in British Westinghouse, the fundamental basis for compensation is to place the injured party, as far as money can do so, in as good a position as if the contract had been performed. However, compensation must reflect the pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach and be tempered by considerations of reasonableness.
In this case, while some contribution from the Tenant is appropriate, full replacement of all vinyl areas would be disproportionate. The House of Lords in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth reaffirmed that where reinstatement would be grossly disproportionate to the actual loss suffered, damages should reflect the real, localised loss rather than automatically awarding the cost of full reinstatement.
The Landlord obtained a replacement quote of $1,988.00 (including GST) for new vinyl across the kitchen, laundry, and bathroom areas using a similar semi- commercial grade product. However, the vinyl has not yet been replaced, and a new tenant is in occupation, indicating that immediate replacement is not essential.
The Tribunal confirmed in Sharma that, where damage is established but no remedial work has yet been undertaken, the appropriate measure of loss is ordinarily the diminution in value, not the full replacement cost.
It is undisputed that the vinyl was newly installed at the start of the tenancy. After approximately two years of use, and in the absence of a specific depreciation guide for vinyl flooring, it is appropriate to refer to the IRD’s General Depreciation Rates (DEP80), which suggest a five-year useful life for chattels, with a 40% diminishing value rate. 6 Using a straight-line calculation, around 40% of the vinyl’s life remained at the end of the tenancy.
Given the age and condition of the flooring, the localised nature of the damage, and fairness as between the parties, it would be unreasonable to require the Tenant to pay for full replacement. Instead, a reasonable contribution toward the diminished value is appropriate.
Taking these factors into account, I assess the Tenant’s liability at $400.00, which fairly reflects: a. that the vinyl was approximately two years old at the end of the tenancy; b. that the damage was localised but more than minor/wear and tear; c. that the damage was careless damage is; and d. that full replacement of the flooring would be disproportionate.
Having regard to the likely age of the curtain, the nature of the tear, and the limited information provided about alternative repair options, I find that a modest award of $20.00 is appropriate to fairly compensate the Landlord for the diminished value of the damaged (torn) curtain.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

The Landlord has also sought cleaning costs for areas noted during the final inspection, including fly debris on skirtings and window frames, food marks on the kitchen walls and appliances, scuff marks on walls, mould on window frames, and general dust and dirt accumulation.
Under section 40(1)(e) of the Act, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, although not necessarily spotless or to a professional standard.
The Tenant has stated that the premises were cleaned thoroughly prior to departure, and that the presence of dead flies (for example) occurred after vacating due to the delay in inspection. This is plausible given the time lapse, and the parties did not undertake a bond inspection together.
The window-sills, skirting boards, and joinery had minor build-up. While not pristine, the house has been respectfully lived in and reasonably cleaned by the departing tenant.
I am not satisfied, on balance, that the condition of the premises at the time of final inspection fell below the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard required.
Accordingly, the Landlord’s claim for additional cleaning costs is dismissed.
The Landlord is entitled to a reimbursement of the filing fee. 6 Default Chattel Depreciation
No suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236223 — Property damage at 46A Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236223 — Property damage at 46A Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the damage to the vinyl flooring?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the damage to the vinyl flooring?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions