What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325859?

The tribunal order states: Georgia Green and Jordan Kieran Euini must pay Adam Trewin $278.00

How much money was awarded in case 5325859?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325859?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12952508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325859?

The tribunal order states: Georgia Green and Jordan Kieran Euini must pay Adam Trewin $278.00

How much money was awarded in case 5325859?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325859?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12952508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Rehia Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325859 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325859 — net $278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: hair-dye stain	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning: hair-dye stain
Repairs: Garage shelf replacement	$100.00	Repairs: Garage shelf replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$278.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$278.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325859 — net $278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: hair-dye stain	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning: hair-dye stain
Repairs: Garage shelf replacement	$100.00	Repairs: Garage shelf replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$278.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$278.00

Order

Georgia Green and Jordan Kieran Euini must pay Adam Trewin $278.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s claims for compensation for damage to walls, to the microwave oven, to the kitchen floor tile and for carpet tiles in the garage are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the laundry shelf was withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Georgia Green represented the tenants. A witness Ms Euini contributed to the hearing.
The parties agree the tenancy began on 14 October 2023 and ended on 16 May 2025. At the end of the tenancy the property manager signed a bond release form and the bond was partially released to the tenant. The property manager/landlord retained $874.84 for overdue water rates ($101.34), carpet cleaning and repair ($563.50), laundry bench replacement ($90.00), and wall repairs ($120.00).
After the bond was partially released to the tenant, the landlord filed this application with Tenancy Services on 13 August 2025. The tenant filed a cross application on 6 January 2025.
The landlord has raised claims for damage to the carpet, walls, kitchen floor tile, microwave panel, laundry bench, garage shelf and garage floor tiles.
The tenants are defending the landlord’s claims but are not pursuing any claims of their own.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
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. Bond release
The tenants said because the property manager signed a form releasing the bond to the tenant, the landlord should not be making any further claims against them.
The landlord said that he lived in Tauranga and had the property managed. Following the end of the tenancy, comments from the property manager alerted him to issues with the property that were of concern. He then chose to visit the property himself and was unhappy with the condition. Because of that he made an application to Tenancy Services, notwithstanding the bond having already been released by the property manager.
The tenants have not brought to my attention any authority that precludes a tenant from making a claim to Tenancy Services even though the bond has already been released. Nor am I aware of there being one. This is the first application the landlord has filed with Tenancy Services for this tenancy.
On that basis I have decided to hear and determine the parties’ claims. Carpet stain
The landlord claims the tenant damaged the carpet by leaving a stain approximately 50mm in diameter. The landlord believes the stain may have been caused by hair-dye. The landlord is claiming $150.00 for professional services to remove the stain. The landlord produced a photograph showing the damage. The photograph shows a modern style carpet in good condition with a stain on it. The landlord said that the carpet cleaner he engaged was successful in removing the stain.
The tenants accept they caused the stain but say it was accidental rather than careless.
In Totara Property Management Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management - Attn: Maritza McCrae v Abigail Joy Rose Malcolmson, James Sinclair Budge [2026] NZTT Hutt Valley 4243889, 4261816, the Tribunal addressed the issue of accidental damage versus careless damage and said the following: “In a tenancy case last year Justice Walker referred to accidental damage and carelessness as follows. “.. accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence...”. Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC
He has linked accidental damage and carelessness. In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts. I am satisfied that “careless damage” in the Act encompasses “accidental damage”. Ms Malcolmson’s unintentional act comes within the meaning of “careless damage”.
Decisions in the Tribunal are persuasive on subsequent Tribunal decisions. This means I must take them into consideration when making my findings, but I am not bound to follow them.
In this case I agree that there is no meaningful distinction between the carpet being damaged accidentally or carelessly; in either case, if there is a difference, the tenant must compensate the landlord for their loss.
I am satisfied the landlord has suffered loss in this case and the tenant must compensate him for this.
This claim is proved. Damage to walls
The landlord claims the tenant damaged the walls at the property. The landlord said he spent $810.00 having the walls repaired prior to them being painted, and he is seeking 75% of that, being $607.00, which he considers covers the careless damage, and the remainder he is prepared to pay to cover fair wear and tear.
The landlord produced three photographs, one which shows three 3-inch screws in a wall, one that shows some scratch marks on a wall, and one that shows more scratch marks on the laundry wall.
The landlord said there was some damage to the walls at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants brought a witness Ms Euini who was the previous tenant. She said the 3-inch screws were already in the wall during her tenancy. The witness said she had placed a painted surfboard over the 3-inch screws during her tenancy.
The tenants said they had done work patching up any damage that they had caused but that the walls had other damage predating their tenancy which they had not remedied.
The tenants also said that the property manager had assessed the damage that needed repairing at the end of the tenancy as being about approximately $120.00 to repair, and this had been deducted from the bond.
The landlord has not provided a start of tenancy report or an end of tenancy report showing the condition of the walls.
On the strength of the information before me today I am not satisfied the damage to the walls caused by these tenants in the course of their tenancy exceeds the value of $120.00 to repair which was deducted from their bond at the end of the tenancy.
I am persuaded that the 3-inch screws were already in the wall at the beginning of this tenancy, and the two other areas of damage to the walls that the landlord has shown me are minimal. I am also persuaded that there was some other damage to the walls at the beginning of the tenancy. The walls have had seven years of wear and tear since the landlord bought the property. The information before me in support of the damage is minimal.
This claim is not proved. Kitchen floor tile
The landlord is claiming $300.00 to replace one cracked tile in the kitchen floor. The landlord produced a photograph which shows the tile. The landlord says the pattern of the cracking shows that something heavy has been dropped on the tile causing it to crack.
The tenants denied dropping anything of significance on the cracked tile. They said the have only used the kitchen tiles in an ordinary way.
The tenants accept the tile cracked during their tenancy but say they did not notice when it happened. The tenants say that some of the floor tiles were loose, in particular one at the end of the kitchen island, and three in the dining room. They said the grout in between the tiles had cracked and was disintegrating.
The landlord accepts that there is movement between some of the tiles, but reiterated that the pattern of the cracking, in his opinion showed shows the tile was damaged by something having been dropped on it.
The tenants produced an e-mail from the property manager to the landlord in which the property manager raises an opinion that the manner in which the tiles have been laid is outdated, and this causes the tiles to crack. The landlord accepted that this information may be correct.
Having considered the above information I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the tile was caused by a careless act of the tenants. It is agreed that there are loose tiles in the kitchen area, and I determine that this is likely to make them susceptible to cracking.
As a side note, I am not persuaded that dropping things on a kitchen floor necessarily goes beyond wear and tear. A kitchen is a utility area and must be designed to withstand the rigours that go with this. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s opinion that the pattern of cracking shows proves on the balance of probabilities the tile was cracked by something heavy being dropped on it.
This claim is not proved. Microwave panel
The landlord claims a small panel in the microwave/convection oven has been damaged by careless use from the tenants. The landlord says the panel has burn marks on it which makes it unsafe to use. The landlord is claiming $50.00 to replace the panel. The landlord says the oven was installed prior to him buying the property in 2018, but at that time he bought the property the oven was all but new.
The tenants deny doing anything in particular to cause damage to the panel. They accept that the panel appears damaged, but say this has happened over the course of using the oven in a normal way.
This tenancy lasted one year and seven months. By the end of the tenancy the oven was approximately 7 years old. Kitchen hardware has a finite life span. On the balance of probabilities the landlord has not satisfied me that the damage to the panel has been caused by a careless act of the tenants. The fact that the panel in question is replaceable at a modest cost, tends to persuade me that these panels may be expected to not last indefinitely.
This claim is not proved. Laundry bench
The tenants pointed out that $90.00 had already been claimed from the bond due to the laundry shelf being removed. On the strength of this, the landlord withdrew this claim. Garage shelves
The landlord is claiming $100.00 for a set of shelves that were removed from the garage during the tenancy.
The tenants say they placed the garage shelves under the house.
The landlord said he inspected the property approximately one week after the tenancy ended. He says the delay was because he lived in Tauranga and the property had been managed by a property manager.
The landlord said the shelves were not under their house at the end of the tenancy.
At the end of the tendency, the tenants could have returned the shelves to the garage. The tenants chose not do this.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the shelves were not under the house at the end of the tenancy. Exactly where the shelves have ended up is not the issue so much as the shelves appear to be missing at the end of the tenancy and the tenants cannot provide an explanation.
Landlord is claiming $100.00 which he says is reasonable but compensation for his loss.
I am persuaded by the landlord’s information on this claim.
This claim and the amount ordered is proved. Garage floor tiles
The landlord is claiming $200.00 to re-lay carpet tiles in the garage.
The tenants said the carpet tiles in question were old and dirty at the beginning of their tenancy. The tenants lifted the tiles and stacked them in the garage. The tenant said there was no adhesive holding the tiles in place. The tenants point to the photographs which they say show there are no marks left on the concrete from where any adhesive might have been attached to the tiles.
The landlord says the tiles had been attached with 3M tape or something similar.
The tenants say that to re-lay the tiles in the same way that the tiles had been laid at the beginning of their tenancy, would take about two minutes. I expect this is a slight exaggeration and it may be 5 to 10 minutes work.
The landlord is seeking $200.00 to have the tiles relayed with adhesive to the garage floor.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the carpet tiles had been laid with adhesive at the beginning of these tenants’ tenancy. Therefore the tenants cannot be expected to pay for them to be re-laid with adhesive.
This claim is not proved.
Because Adam Trewin has partially succeeded with his claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325859 — Cleanliness at 50 Rehia Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325859 — Cleanliness at 50 Rehia Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions