Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5453490 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 2 Miami Street, Mangere East, Auckland
Published 20 May 2026 · Application 5453490
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
H Ben Fayed
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $402.50 | Cleaning | |
| Repairs: Wall repair and paint | $1,380.00 | Repairs: Wall repair and paint |
Claims and awards for application 5453490. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $402.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Repairs: Wall repair and paint
- Amount
- $1,380.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Wall repair and paint
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (BN-17529866) immediately apportioned as follows:
- Both parties attended the hearing in person at Manukau.
- The tenancy commenced on 13 September 2024 and concluded on 25 October 2025.
- The applicant seeks: a) $2,760.00 for painting; b) $805.00 for cleaning; c) $200.00 for floor repairs; d) $236.00 for blind repairs. e) Reimbursement of the application filing fee; and f) Suppression
- The respondent seeks: a) refund of the full bond; b) exemplary damages for alleged breaches of section 38, harassment, and interference with quiet enjoyment; and c) reimbursement of the application filing fee. d) Suppression
Is the respondent liable for cleaning?
- The landlord states that the property was left well short of the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard required by section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exit inspection photographs were provided showing that a number of areas had not been wiped down, there was grime present throughout the property, and the rangehood required cleaning, amongst other issues.
- The landlord provided the tenant with a quote for cleaning in the amount of $805.00 on 1 November. The tenant subsequently returned to the property on two occasions during November to undertake further cleaning. The landlord has also provided further photographs dated 24 November showing that additional cleaning and removal of grime was still required.
- At the conclusion of a tenancy, tenants are required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Ordinarily, once vacant possession has been returned, a landlord is not obliged to permit a tenant to re-enter the premises to undertake further cleaning. In this case, however, the landlord did permit the tenant to return on two occasions to complete additional cleaning.
- I am satisfied that, even after the tenant’s further attendance at the property, some additional cleaning remained reasonably necessary as at 24 November. However, the amount reasonably required would necessarily have been less than the amount quoted on 1 November, prior to the tenant returning twice to undertake further work however the landlord did not account for this or ask the contractor to.
- In the circumstances, it is appropriate to award half of the claimed amount. Accordingly, $402.50 is awarded for cleaning.
Is the respondent liable for the painting invoice?
- The landlord has provided photographs showing a substantial number of scuff marks throughout the property. At the commencement of the tenancy, the property was newly constructed and had not previously been occupied.
- At the conclusion of the tenancy, there were extensive scuff marks throughout the premises. The landlord states that multiple professional opinions and quotations were obtained, and they were advised that the volume of marking could not reasonably be remedied by touch-up work alone and that a full repaint was required. The landlord subsequently proceeded with a full repaint of the property at a cost of $2,760.00.
- The tenant submits that the damage constitutes fair wear and tear arising from ordinary use of the premises and that they should not be held liable. They also submit that the amount claimed is excessive.
- The damage shown in the photographs is of a type that may ordinarily be described as wear and tear. However, having regard to the relatively short duration of the tenancy, the fact that the property was brand new at commencement, and the further evidence regarding the condition in which the property was left at the end of the tenancy, I do not consider the extent of the damage to fall within ordinary fair wear and tear.
- The volume and extent of the scuffing shown in the photographs is more consistent with careless damage. The property appears significantly more worn than would reasonably be expected after approximately one year of occupation.
- I also do not accept that the cost is excessive. The cost for the work done appears to be very reasonable.
- However, I am not satisfied that the evidence substantiates the need for a full repaint of the entire property. While photographs of extensive scuff marks have been provided, it is not clear from the evidence that repainting of every room was reasonably necessary. I must also take into account the depreciation and betterment. As a result of the works undertaken, the landlord has received the benefit of a fully repainted property and some even if not all could reasonably be accounted for as fair wear and tear..
- In the circumstances, I consider that a contribution of half the amount claimed represents an appropriate contribution towards the careless damage caused by the tenant.
- Accordingly, $1,380.00 is awarded.
Is the respondent liable for the floor damage?
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing a small section of laminate flooring that has been damaged and is no longer present.
- The tenant is unable to explain precisely how the damage occurred. However, the damage is consistent with fair wear and tear.
- That does not mean the flooring is undamaged. Rather, it reflects the principle that ordinary occupation of a property will inevitably result in some degree of deterioration and minor damage over time. Such deterioration is generally not the responsibility of the tenant. Landlords can reasonably expect that ordinary use of the premises will require ongoing maintenance and repair, the cost of which is compensated through the payment of rent.
- The claim for floor damage is therefore dismissed.
Is the respondent liable for the blind repair cost?
- The landlord seeks $236.00 for damage to a blind.
- The photographs show crease marks which have developed into cracks. The damage appears consistent with the blind having been folded or compressed with a heavy object placed upon it.
- The tenant states that the opening and closing mechanism did not function correctly and that this is how the damage occurred. However, that explanation does not account for the nature of the damage shown in the photographs.
- I accept that the damage was caused carelessly, or intentionally, by the tenant. Accordingly, the sum of $236.00 is awarded.
Did the landlord harass the tenant?
- The tenant alleges that the landlord harassed them. The tenant says this occurred because: e) the landlord attempted to charge them for a water bill relating to a period prior to the commencement of the tenancy; f) rubbish bins were not available at the commencement of the tenancy and this issue took approximately two weeks to resolve; and g) the landlord did not immediately refund the bond, resulting in the tenant having to make a KiwiSaver hardship application.
- The first two matters were ultimately resolved. The bins were eventually provided and, in the case of newly constructed properties, delays of this nature can occur where bins are yet to be supplied by the local council. Similarly, the disputed water charge was never paid after the tenant raised the issue with the landlord.
- In relation to the delay in refunding the bond and resolving the dispute, I accept that this caused hardship and inconvenience to the tenant. However, where parties are in dispute at the conclusion of a tenancy, both landlords and tenants are entitled to seek determination of the matter through the Tribunal process. Inevitably, this results in delay and stress.
- I also note that the matter was further delayed due to the tenant’s own reasonable request for an adjournment arising from personal circumstances, which contributed to the overall timeframe for resolution.
- Taken together, these matters do not amount to harassment. Harassment requires a deliberate and persistent course of conduct intended to disturb, distress, or harm the other party. I am not satisfied that such conduct occurred here.
- The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
- Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal, and both have achieved some measure of success. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that each party bear their own filing fee.
- Both parties have also sought suppression. Neither party has been entirely successful so as to entitle them to automatic suppression, and there are no special circumstances giving rise to an interest outweighing the public interest in open justice. Suppression is therefore declined. H Ben Fayed 20 May 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s38, s40(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- WISECHOICE RENTAL PROPERTY LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5453490?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (BN-17529866) immediately
How much money was awarded in case 5453490?
Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453490?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453490?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13628022-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.