Tenant ordered to pay damages and cleaning costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $367.38 for damages and cleaning costs. The tenant argued that some issues were present at the start of the tenancy and that some costs were excessive or related to normal wear and tear. However, the Tribunal found the tenant responsible for certain damages and cleaning costs that exceeded fair wear and tear.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damages that exceed fair wear and tear and are proven to have occurred during the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the rental property reasonably clean and tidy, and leaving it in that condition when moving out. It also requires the tenant to notify the landlord of any damage or needed repairs.
This rule states that if one party breaks a tenancy agreement or a rule in the Act, the other party must take reasonable steps to reduce any resulting damage or loss. This is known as mitigating loss.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $367.38 for damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $367.38 for damages and cleaning costs. The tenant disputed several claims, arguing that some issues were present at the start of the tenancy and that some costs were excessive or related to normal wear and tear. The Tribunal found that the tenant was responsible for certain damages and cleaning costs that exceeded fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 1
[2026] NZTT 5420954
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] As Agents For [COMPANY] $367.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5608545-004) to [COMPANY] As Agents For [COMPANY] immediately.
Description Landlord Tenant Carpet Cleaning $375.38 Replace furnishings: Carpet in the lounge $849.00 Paint walls and door in the bedroom beside the laundry $230.00 Rubbish removal $365.00 Cleaning: Clean oil from the driveway $80.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet in the bedroom by the laundry
$360.00
Replace furnishings: Chipped vanity Cleaning: bathroom, kitchen and laundry under sink
$200.00 $80.00
Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $2,567.38 Bond $2,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $367.38
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. [NAME] appeared for the landlord by video conference.
3. [NAME], the tenant, appeared for herself by teleconference.
4. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Background
5. The landlord applies for compensation arising from the tenancy which commenced on 24 June 2023 and ended on 15 November 2025.
6. [NAME] disputes a number of the claims. She submits that some of the items complained of were present at the commencement of the tenancy, that she arranged professional carpet cleaning before vacating, and that several of the costs claimed are excessive or relate to ordinary wear and tear.
7. I heard evidence from both parties and have considered the documentary evidence filed.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
8. 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 Act”). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Carpet cleaning
9. The landlord claims $375.38 for professional carpet cleaning undertaken to address staining and dog odour as part of its efforts to mitigate loss before determining whether further cleaning or replacement was necessary. See section 49 of the Act.
10. The landlord submits that, despite the tenant arranging carpet cleaning before vacating, the odour and staining remained.
11. The tenant submits that she had the carpets professionally cleaned before vacating and says that some staining existed at the commencement of the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 3
12. [NAME] did not accept [NAME]’ assertion that the staining was pre- existing. In any event, even if some staining existed at the commencement of the tenancy, the carpet ultimately required replacement because the odour remained and the landlord’s insurance policy did not cover damage caused by pet odour.
13. I accept the landlord's evidence that additional cleaning was reasonably required. The cost of $375.38 is awarded.
Replacement of lounge carpet
14. The landlord claims $1,698.00 for replacement of carpet in the lounge due to staining and pet odour.
15. The tenant submits the carpet was not new at the commencement of the tenancy and points to pre-existing wear.
16. I accept that the carpet required replacement as a result of damage beyond fair wear and tear. However, I must take into account depreciation and avoid betterment. The evidence indicates the carpet was approximately five years old. Applying a 50% reduction for depreciation, I award $849.00.
Painting of bedroom beside laundry
17. The landlord claims $747.50 for repainting walls and a door in the bedroom beside the laundry.
18. The tenant accepts some responsibility for damage to the door but submits the walls were not in perfect condition at the commencement of the tenancy and that there were existing marks, patches and defects.
19. I accept the tenant's submission that the room was not in pristine condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Taking into account the evidence of the property's condition, depreciation, and the principle against betterment, I award $230.00.
Rubbish removal
20. The landlord claims part of a larger invoice for removal of rubbish and materials left at the property.
21. The tenant says some items were already present and disputes responsibility for all of the materials removed.
22. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that rubbish removal was required following the end of the tenancy. I award $365.00.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 4
Oil stain on driveway
23. The landlord claims the cost of cleaning an oil stain from the driveway.
24. The tenant accepts responsibility for the stain.
25. The claim is awarded in the sum of $80.00.
Damaged weatherboards
26. The landlord seeks compensation for supplying and fixing a grill to damaged weatherboards.
27. The tenant disputes responsibility and says she was unaware how the damage occurred.
28. The evidence before me does not satisfy me that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear or that compensation should be awarded. This claim is declined.
Cleaning for bathroom, kitchen and laundry under sink
29. The landlord seeks a further amount for cleaning.
30. The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Reasonableness is objectively assessed. I have reviewed the exit inspection report.
31. I am not satisfied that the additional amount claimed of $160 is reasonable. I consider $80 reasonable because this is not a case where the tenant has not done any cleaning. However, I accept the tenant should have done more than the condition that was left.
Replacement of bedroom carpet beside laundry
32. The landlord claims $720.00 for replacement of carpet in the bedroom beside the laundry due to dog odour.
33. The tenant disputes the extent of the damage and says she had arranged professional cleaning.
34. For the reasons already given in relation to depreciation and betterment, I award 50% of the claimed cost. The award is $360.00.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
35. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 5
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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
Replacement of a vanity
41. The landlord claims $1,421.24 for the replacement of a vanity top said to have been chipped during the tenancy. The damage could not be said to have been intentional. It was more likely than not that it was done carelessly.
42. The tenant disputes that replacement of the entire vanity was necessary and says the alleged damage is minor.
43. Following the hearing, I received a photograph identifying the chips relied upon by the landlord. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the chips occurred during the tenancy and were likely caused by items being carelessly dropped onto the vanity surface. However, the damage consists of three relatively small chips. In my view, the damage could reasonably have been addressed by repair rather than complete replacement of the vanity top.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 6
44. The claimed replacement cost of $1,421.24 is excessive and disproportionate to the extent of the damage shown in the photographs. Doing the best I can on the available evidence, I award $200.00.
45. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Filing fee
46. [COMPANY] As Agents For [COMPANY] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
M Kan
16 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 7
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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5420954 8
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 landlord's claim for additional carpet cleaning was accepted because the odour and staining remained after the tenant's cleaning.
- The lounge carpet needed replacement due to damage beyond normal wear and tear.
- The tenant accepted some responsibility for damage to the bedroom door.
- Rubbish removal was necessary after the tenancy ended.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the oil stain on the driveway.
- The chips on the vanity top occurred during the tenancy and were likely caused by items being carelessly dropped.
- The landlord substantially succeeded with the claim, so the filing fee was reimbursed.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for damaged weatherboards was declined because there was no proof the damage exceeded fair wear and tear.
- The full cost for replacing the vanity was rejected because the damage was minor and could have been repaired.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $367.38 for damages and cleaning costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant's responsibility for damages and cleaning costs that exceeded fair wear and tear.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for certain damages and cleaning costs that exceeded fair wear and tear, based on the evidence presented.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v), 40(1)(ca), and 49 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that certain damages and cleaning costs exceeded fair wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that they leave the rental property in a condition that reflects fair wear and tear to avoid liability for damages and cleaning costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the condition report at the start of the tenancy, the exit inspection report, and the invoices for damages and cleaning costs.
