What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389589?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $440.00 for the bond.

How much money was awarded in case 5389589?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389589?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13633066-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389589?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $440.00 for the bond.

How much money was awarded in case 5389589?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389589?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13633066-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3, Unit/Flat Unit 1, 62 Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389589 — Cleanliness

Order

The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $440.00 for the bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and the filing fee. At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew her claims for the rubbish bin and carpet cleaning.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: floor damage, bed damage.
The Landlord claimed for repairs to the wooden floor in two areas of the kitchen. The Landlord submitted the house was brand new in 2023. There were three other Tenants renting bedrooms at the property who had moved prior to the Tenant and continued to live there simultaneously. Those Tenants had contacted the Landlord on 29 October 2025 to advise that the kitchen floor was damaged but they did not know how it was caused. All four Tenants then agreed to share the cost of the repair including the Tenant. The Tenant then changed their mind regarding paying. The Landlord provided a photograph of the damage and letter from the other Tenants confirming they agreed to pay for the damage.
The Tenant submitted he agreed to paying the repair because he was pressured by the Landlord. As an immigrant he wanted to avoid conflict and live peacefully however the Landlord then increased the quote to repair the floor without providing proper quotes. He then believed it was not a lawful claim and withdrew his agreement to pay. There was no proof that he caused the damage. Also the flooring is in a common area shared by multiple tenants and the marks appeared to be normal wear and tear. During the process, the Tenant stated the Landlord sent him several intimidating messages which were emotionally damaging. These included the Landlord stating she would only refund one week of bond and would decide on the rest later, the Landlord stating she should have taken legal action against all the Tenants but didn’t and the Landlord stated she received multiple complaints about the Tenant.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report when the Tenant moved in. This would have indicated if the damage on the floor was not present at the time. There were other Tenants that had lived there before this Tenant and it could have been those Tenants that caused the damage. Also, although the other Tenants paid towards the damage, that was at their own discretion and perhaps in an effort to settle this issue fairly. It did not however mean that this Tenant caused the damage. Without an ingoing inspection, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the Tenant caused this damage.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed for a broken bed the Tenant used which she had purchased for $750.00 approximately one year ago. The base was broken at the end of the tenancy. She provided photographs of the broken bed. The Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report or receipt for the bed to show the condition of the bed when the Tenant moved in.
The Tenant submitted that the bed was not damaged when he moved in. A photograph was provided of the slats which appeared in good condition. He moved out in November 2025 and the Landlord only filed their claim for the damage two weeks later. They did not raise this damage at the time he moved out.
In considering the evidence, I have no proof of the condition of the bed or receipt for the cost of the bed to confirm that the Tenant damaged it during the tenancy. I am therefore unable to find that the Tenant is liable for the cost of a new bed.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord has claimed compensation for mental stress caused by the Tenant. The stress was overwhelming because at the same time, she had surgery for her tooth, her grandmother had passed and she had a car accident. She filed a report for the accident.
The Tenant submitted he suffered stress as well when the Landlord wanted him to move out within one week rather than two.
In considering the evidence, I find that the stress suffered by the Landlord was not the result of any breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by the Tenant. The Tenant was not found to be responsible for either the floor damage or the bed damage. I accept that the Landlord experienced stress from the issues with the floor and bed and in arranging the necessary repairs; however, there is no evidence that the Tenant caused that damage.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim
The Tenant claimed $1500.00 for compensation due to the Landlord installing a camera in the living room. The Tenant stated it was a breach of his privacy. The Landlord had told him it was for the safety of the Tenants. On one occasion, he left the property to go to work at around 5.00am and did not close the door properly. The Landlord subsequently sent him a message asking him to close the door and sending him camera footage of the door being left open for several hours. The Tenant became stressed that this breach could affect his immigration visa.
The Landlord stated that she never threatened anything about a breach. She sent him a video of him leaving the door open because they had received complaints from the other tenants about this. The Tenant said he would ensure he would close the door and then nothing else was raised by the Tenant about this issue until his application to the Tribunal. The Landlord submitted the camera points to the main door and was installed due to previous security experiences.
Having a camera installed in the lounge can be a breach of quiet enjoyment and reasonable privacy in accordance with section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tenant did not consent to the camera being in the property but he did not provide evidence to show the camera was annoying him or disturbing his privacy. He should have raised that with the Landlord during the tenancy if it was invading his privacy. Because he has not provided this evidence, I do not find this was a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The claim is dismissed.
As both parties have not been substantially successful with their claims, the parties shall pay their own filing fees and name suppression is not granted to the Landlord.

Order

The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $440.00 for the bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and the filing fee. At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew her claims for the rubbish bin and carpet cleaning.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: floor damage, bed damage.
The Landlord claimed for repairs to the wooden floor in two areas of the kitchen. The Landlord submitted the house was brand new in 2023. There were three other Tenants renting bedrooms at the property who had moved prior to the Tenant and continued to live there simultaneously. Those Tenants had contacted the Landlord on 29 October 2025 to advise that the kitchen floor was damaged but they did not know how it was caused. All four Tenants then agreed to share the cost of the repair including the Tenant. The Tenant then changed their mind regarding paying. The Landlord provided a photograph of the damage and letter from the other Tenants confirming they agreed to pay for the damage.
The Tenant submitted he agreed to paying the repair because he was pressured by the Landlord. As an immigrant he wanted to avoid conflict and live peacefully however the Landlord then increased the quote to repair the floor without providing proper quotes. He then believed it was not a lawful claim and withdrew his agreement to pay. There was no proof that he caused the damage. Also the flooring is in a common area shared by multiple tenants and the marks appeared to be normal wear and tear. During the process, the Tenant stated the Landlord sent him several intimidating messages which were emotionally damaging. These included the Landlord stating she would only refund one week of bond and would decide on the rest later, the Landlord stating she should have taken legal action against all the Tenants but didn’t and the Landlord stated she received multiple complaints about the Tenant.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report when the Tenant moved in. This would have indicated if the damage on the floor was not present at the time. There were other Tenants that had lived there before this Tenant and it could have been those Tenants that caused the damage. Also, although the other Tenants paid towards the damage, that was at their own discretion and perhaps in an effort to settle this issue fairly. It did not however mean that this Tenant caused the damage. Without an ingoing inspection, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the Tenant caused this damage.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed for a broken bed the Tenant used which she had purchased for $750.00 approximately one year ago. The base was broken at the end of the tenancy. She provided photographs of the broken bed. The Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report or receipt for the bed to show the condition of the bed when the Tenant moved in.
The Tenant submitted that the bed was not damaged when he moved in. A photograph was provided of the slats which appeared in good condition. He moved out in November 2025 and the Landlord only filed their claim for the damage two weeks later. They did not raise this damage at the time he moved out.
In considering the evidence, I have no proof of the condition of the bed or receipt for the cost of the bed to confirm that the Tenant damaged it during the tenancy. I am therefore unable to find that the Tenant is liable for the cost of a new bed.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord has claimed compensation for mental stress caused by the Tenant. The stress was overwhelming because at the same time, she had surgery for her tooth, her grandmother had passed and she had a car accident. She filed a report for the accident.
The Tenant submitted he suffered stress as well when the Landlord wanted him to move out within one week rather than two.
In considering the evidence, I find that the stress suffered by the Landlord was not the result of any breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by the Tenant. The Tenant was not found to be responsible for either the floor damage or the bed damage. I accept that the Landlord experienced stress from the issues with the floor and bed and in arranging the necessary repairs; however, there is no evidence that the Tenant caused that damage.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim
The Tenant claimed $1500.00 for compensation due to the Landlord installing a camera in the living room. The Tenant stated it was a breach of his privacy. The Landlord had told him it was for the safety of the Tenants. On one occasion, he left the property to go to work at around 5.00am and did not close the door properly. The Landlord subsequently sent him a message asking him to close the door and sending him camera footage of the door being left open for several hours. The Tenant became stressed that this breach could affect his immigration visa.
The Landlord stated that she never threatened anything about a breach. She sent him a video of him leaving the door open because they had received complaints from the other tenants about this. The Tenant said he would ensure he would close the door and then nothing else was raised by the Tenant about this issue until his application to the Tribunal. The Landlord submitted the camera points to the main door and was installed due to previous security experiences.
Having a camera installed in the lounge can be a breach of quiet enjoyment and reasonable privacy in accordance with section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tenant did not consent to the camera being in the property but he did not provide evidence to show the camera was annoying him or disturbing his privacy. He should have raised that with the Landlord during the tenancy if it was invading his privacy. Because he has not provided this evidence, I do not find this was a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The claim is dismissed.
As both parties have not been substantially successful with their claims, the parties shall pay their own filing fees and name suppression is not granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389589 — Cleanliness at Room 3, Unit/Flat Unit 1, 62 Coxhead Road, Manurewa,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389589 — Cleanliness at Room 3, Unit/Flat Unit 1, 62 Coxhead Road, Manurewa,

At a glance

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

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