Tenancy Tribunal dismisses all claims in recent ruling
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal ruling, all claims were dismissed. The dispute involved wall damage, carpet cleaning, and a missing garden ornament. The Tribunal ruled that the wall damage existed before the tenancy began and that the carpets did not need professional cleaning.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not liable for damages that predate the tenancy unless there is clear evidence of liability.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed all claims, including those related to wall damage, carpet cleaning, and garden ornament.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Christchurch dismissed all claims in a recent ruling involving wall damage, carpet cleaning, and a missing garden ornament. The Tribunal found that the wall damage predated the tenancy and that the carpets did not require professional cleaning.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 1
[2025] NZTT 5132071, 5202251
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURCH | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTAUTAHI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The parties’ claims are dismissed.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,796.43 (5580183-002) to [NAME] immediately.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
Background
2. This tenancy started in May 2023 and ended in January 2025.
3. The landlords have owned the premises since 1985 and they lived in it until 2020. Since the tenancy ended, they have moved back into it.
4. During the time that the premises were rented, the landlord left their belongings in the garage and a trailer and a car in the shed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 2
5. The property manager at the start of the tenancy was not the property manager when it ended. That has created some evidential problems for the landlords in relation to their application.
6. There was a claim for rent arrears. That was resolved at mediation and the arrears have been paid from the bond. $1,796.43 bond remains at the Bond Centre.
The Landlords’ Claims
Wall Damage
7. The landlords claim that the tenant damaged a wall in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant denies that and says that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.
8. The landlords did not produce a photograph showing the wall at the start of the tenancy. It did produce the ingoing inspection report signed by both parties that does not record the wall damage.
9. The landlords also produced photographs showing the wall taken during the tenancy at routine inspections.
10. The first photograph taken in August 2023 does not show the damaged part of the wall.
11. The other two photographs taken in November 2023 and May 2024 show the damage.
12. The tenant says that he signed the ingoing report without checking it, trusting that the agent recorded all damage.
13. He also pointed out that he had repaired damage in the premises that he had caused. He is a painter and decorator. One area of damage was close to the wall damage. He says that if he had damaged the wall, he would have repaired it as he had done for the other damage.
14. The deciding factor for me is that the damage was plainly there early in the tenancy and yet there is no evidence that the landlords brought it up with the tenant let alone asked him to repair it. That suggests that the agent at the time did not hold him liable for it.
15. I find that it is likely that the damage predated the tenancy and therefore the claim is dismissed.
Carpet Cleaning
16. The landlords claim the cost of professional carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 3
17. The issue is whether the evidence proves that the carpet needed professional cleaning to bring it to a reasonably clean condition. That is what the Act requires and nothing in the tenancy agreement alters that.
18. The landlords said that there was cat hair around the edges of the carpet, and that only professional cleaning could remove that, and that hair was embedded in the carpet.
19. The landlord’s photographs do not show the cat hair. The carpets look reasonably clean in them.
20. The tenant said that he had the cat for only about a month. There is good evidence that it had gone by April 2024.
21. Based on this evidence I am not satisfied that the carpets needed professional cleaning by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
22. [NAME] is allergic to cats and they have moved back into the premises. That appears to be the reason for the professional cleaning. The landlord’s allergies are not relevant to the statutory cleaning standard.
Carpet Damage
23. The landlords claim the insurance excess after they incurred the cost of replacing the carpet in the lounge/dining area. They say the carpet was stained during the tenancy and had to be replaced for that reason.
24. The ingoing report refers to brown stains in the area. The tenant said that the stain emerged after he had the carpet professionally cleaned.
25. The landlord’s ingoing photographs are not good quality but as far as I can tell from them, there is a discoloured area in the living/dining area where the stain is shown in the outgoing photographs. I find therefore that the stain was present at the start of the tenancy, and I therefore dismiss this claim.
Garden Ornament
26. The was a “garden ornament” near the front door of the premises and the landlord claims that it was missing at the end of the tenancy. It claims $100 for its loss. It was a string of old Bakelite insulating blocks that the landlords picked up from the dump.
27. The premises are open to the road, and anyone could have taken the “ornament”. I accept that the tenant did not remove it. The claim is therefore dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 4
Tenant’s Claims
Wood Burner
28. The tenant claims that the wood burner in the premises was not compliant. He produced no hard evidence of that and so the claim is dismissed.
The Garage, Shed and Landlords’ Goods
29. There is a garage, shed and carport on the premises. The garage was locked and contained the landlords’ goods.
30. The shed had the landlord’s trailer in it and, for some of the time of the tenancy, a car belonging to them.
31. The tenants had the use of the carport and part of the shed after the car was removed.
32. The tenancy agreement makes no mention of the garage or the shed being excluded from the tenancy.
33. The landlords produced the advertisement for the rental. It states that the garage is not included. The tenant said that he did not read that.
34. The landlords said that it was made clear to the tenant before signing the tenancy agreement that the garage and shed were not available for his use. The tenant denied that.
35. I am struck by the fact that the tenant did not raise any issue concerning the garage or shed during the tenancy. That suggests that he was aware they were not part of the tenancy. I note that the landlords came to and from the shed during the tenancy apparently without objection from the tenant, except as to timing.
36. I am also not inclined to make an award in favour of a tenant when the tenant has not raised any objection during the tenancy or taken any steps to assert a right which they later claim to have had. This is not a case where the tenant could be unaware of the right (if it exists). He could not use the shed or the garage and if he thought he was entitled to use them the obvious thing to do was to say so.
37. I therefore dismiss this claim.
Unlawful Entry/Interference with Quiet Enjoyment.
38. One of the landlords came and went from the premises when he accessed the shed and garage. On most occasions the tenant received notice of these visits
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 5
and consented to them. The tenant says that there were three occasions when the landlord entered without permission.
39. The landlord accepted that he came to the premises on a Monday when notice had been given and accepted for the Tuesday. The tenant was not at home at the time. The landlord said that afterwards the tenant said that he did not have a problem with it.
40. On the other two occasions the tenant said that he did not receive notice or give permission. On one of those occasions the landlord later reported that there was a blocked drain which he said suggests that the landlord took the opportunity to conduct an unlawful inspection.
41. Regarding the drain, the landlords said that he noticed flooding and went to investigate.
42. I note that the landlord at no time entered the house unlawfully. Entering the land other than the house unlawfully is not an unlawful act and so all that the Tribunal can consider is awarding compensation.
43. The tenant has not suffered any financial loss and so that leaves general compensation for upset. I am not minded to award compensation because the tenant was content for the landlords to come onto the land to access the shed and garage with notice. When the landlords entered without notice, the tenant was concerned but does not appear to have been upset. He certainly did not make any formal complaint at the time. My impression is that this claim has been raised now as a counter to the landlords’ claims.
44. I therefore dismiss the claim.
Result
45. All claims are dismissed, and the remaining bond will be paid to the tenant.
[NAME] 06 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 6
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5132071 7
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant signed the ingoing report without checking it thoroughly.
- The landlord did not bring up the wall damage with the tenant during the tenancy.
- The carpets looked reasonably clean in the landlord's photographs.
- The tenant had the cat for only about a month, and it had gone by April 2024.
- The stain on the carpet was present at the start of the tenancy according to the ingoing report.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord did not provide a photograph of the wall at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord's photographs of the wall taken during the tenancy showed damage only later.
- The tenant repaired other damage he caused during the tenancy.
- The landlord claimed professional carpet cleaning was necessary due to cat hair, but provided no clear evidence.
- The tenant did not raise any issues about the use of the garage or shed during the tenancy.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
All claims were dismissed, including those related to wall damage, carpet cleaning, and a missing garden ornament.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about alleged damage to a wall, the need for professional carpet cleaning, and the loss of a garden ornament.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss all claims because there was insufficient evidence to prove that the wall damage occurred during the tenancy and the carpets did not require professional cleaning.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was the lack of evidence proving that the wall damage occurred during the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they need strong evidence to prove that any alleged damage occurred during the tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and the ingoing inspection report were considered, but they did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claims.