What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393962?

The tribunal order states: Leen Schuermans and Tom Stammen to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5393962?

Painting: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393962?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393962?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12953410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393962?

The tribunal order states: Leen Schuermans and Tom Stammen to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5393962?

Painting: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393962?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393962?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12953410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Teuila Grove, Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393962 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393962 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$500.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

Leen Schuermans and Tom Stammen to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (BN-17128496) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao: $500.00 Leen Schuermans and Tom Stammen: $2,900.00

The tenant application (5375344) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants filed a cross application on 28 October 2025 opposing the claims made by the landlord. The tenants raise no claims in their application and because of this their application is dismissed.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Have the tenants breached their obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation? Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends. Legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the carpet reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the cost of the first carpet cleaning invoice dated 20 October 2025 for $508.00. The landlord says that the carpet throughout the house had to be cleaned.
The tenants say that it is excessive. They say that there were only small areas which required cleaning. The carpet is approximately 3 years old. The landlord confirmed that they are not claiming the cost of the second invoice.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report dated 10 October 2025 in support of their various claims. Analysis
After careful consideration of the circumstances and condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy, I decline landlord’s the claim for carpet cleaning. The carpet was 3 years old at the time the tenancy concluded, and the minor marks observed fall within the scope of reasonable wear and tear consistent with normal residential use.
There is no requirement for tenants to leave carpet spotlessly clean, only reasonably clean. As such, these minor signs of use do not meet the threshold for tenant liability, and no reimbursement or deduction is warranted.
I also note that the landlord has not provided an entry inspection report with their application.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning has not been established.

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: damage to the cooktop and damage to various walls. Kitchen cooktop
The landlord claims the cost of damage to the kitchen stove cooktop. The tenants accept that they dropped a glass jar which caused minor damage to the cooktop. This damage is evident from the photographs provided.
The landlord confirmed that the cooktop is approximately 3 years old. The landlord has only provided a quote in the form of an email for $1319.05 to replace the item. The landlord has not provided a paid receipt for this claim. Analysis
The landlord has only provided a quote to have the cooktop replaced. This is unsatisfactory, as a landlord is unable to prove they have suffered financial loss with only a quote.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal of actual payment or completed repairs.
In the absence of a paid invoice for a replacement cooktop or other confirmation that the replacement has been carried out and the cost genuinely incurred, the Tribunal is unable to substantiate the amount claimed.
The landlord’s claim for cooktop replacement has not been established and is dismissed. Damage to walls
The landlord claims the cost of painting areas of the house where the tenants have carried out their own paint repair work.
The tenants say that the repair work resulted mainly from everyday wear and tear, such as minor damage from moving in and out of the property. They also confirmed that various marks on the garage wall were the result of everyday use such as bicycles leaning against the walls.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. There is also an invoice from Renomate dated 20 November 2025 for $1587.00. Analysis
After reviewing the evidence and the tenant’s acceptance of partial responsibility for the condition of the walls, a portion of the amount claimed is, in my view, appropriate. I find however that the full amount claimed is simply not supported by the evidence provided with the application.
A number of the minor marks and paint chips are in line with fair wear and tear. That said, it is my view that the landlord should be compensated for areas where the tenants have attempted their own good faith repair work, but which has caused cosmetic damage with non-matching paint.
The landlord has not provided adequate evidence which demonstrates that the entire scope of wall repair work was necessitated by tenant-caused damage. Put simply, the amount of $1587.00 claimed for painting is not supported by the evidence.
The claim for wall repairs is allowed. I award reduced compensation of $500.00 which is a fair and reasonable contribution towards the substantiated portion in line with the evidence filed in support.
Because the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
Because the tenant’s application has been dismissed I also do not reimburse their filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393962 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$500.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

Leen Schuermans and Tom Stammen to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (BN-17128496) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao: $500.00 Leen Schuermans and Tom Stammen: $2,900.00

The tenant application (5375344) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants filed a cross application on 28 October 2025 opposing the claims made by the landlord. The tenants raise no claims in their application and because of this their application is dismissed.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Have the tenants breached their obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation? Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends. Legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the carpet reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the cost of the first carpet cleaning invoice dated 20 October 2025 for $508.00. The landlord says that the carpet throughout the house had to be cleaned.
The tenants say that it is excessive. They say that there were only small areas which required cleaning. The carpet is approximately 3 years old. The landlord confirmed that they are not claiming the cost of the second invoice.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report dated 10 October 2025 in support of their various claims. Analysis
After careful consideration of the circumstances and condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy, I decline landlord’s the claim for carpet cleaning. The carpet was 3 years old at the time the tenancy concluded, and the minor marks observed fall within the scope of reasonable wear and tear consistent with normal residential use.
There is no requirement for tenants to leave carpet spotlessly clean, only reasonably clean. As such, these minor signs of use do not meet the threshold for tenant liability, and no reimbursement or deduction is warranted.
I also note that the landlord has not provided an entry inspection report with their application.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning has not been established.

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: damage to the cooktop and damage to various walls. Kitchen cooktop
The landlord claims the cost of damage to the kitchen stove cooktop. The tenants accept that they dropped a glass jar which caused minor damage to the cooktop. This damage is evident from the photographs provided.
The landlord confirmed that the cooktop is approximately 3 years old. The landlord has only provided a quote in the form of an email for $1319.05 to replace the item. The landlord has not provided a paid receipt for this claim. Analysis
The landlord has only provided a quote to have the cooktop replaced. This is unsatisfactory, as a landlord is unable to prove they have suffered financial loss with only a quote.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal of actual payment or completed repairs.
In the absence of a paid invoice for a replacement cooktop or other confirmation that the replacement has been carried out and the cost genuinely incurred, the Tribunal is unable to substantiate the amount claimed.
The landlord’s claim for cooktop replacement has not been established and is dismissed. Damage to walls
The landlord claims the cost of painting areas of the house where the tenants have carried out their own paint repair work.
The tenants say that the repair work resulted mainly from everyday wear and tear, such as minor damage from moving in and out of the property. They also confirmed that various marks on the garage wall were the result of everyday use such as bicycles leaning against the walls.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. There is also an invoice from Renomate dated 20 November 2025 for $1587.00. Analysis
After reviewing the evidence and the tenant’s acceptance of partial responsibility for the condition of the walls, a portion of the amount claimed is, in my view, appropriate. I find however that the full amount claimed is simply not supported by the evidence provided with the application.
A number of the minor marks and paint chips are in line with fair wear and tear. That said, it is my view that the landlord should be compensated for areas where the tenants have attempted their own good faith repair work, but which has caused cosmetic damage with non-matching paint.
The landlord has not provided adequate evidence which demonstrates that the entire scope of wall repair work was necessitated by tenant-caused damage. Put simply, the amount of $1587.00 claimed for painting is not supported by the evidence.
The claim for wall repairs is allowed. I award reduced compensation of $500.00 which is a fair and reasonable contribution towards the substantiated portion in line with the evidence filed in support.
Because the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
Because the tenant’s application has been dismissed I also do not reimburse their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393962 — Property damage at 6 Teuila Grove, Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393962 — Property damage at 6 Teuila Grove, Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions