Tenants Ordered to Pay $475 for Repairs - Tenancy Tribunal Decision
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $475 for oven cleaning and wall repairs. The Tribunal found that the landlord proved the damage was not fair wear and tear, making the tenants responsible for the repairs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for repairing damage to the premises during the tenancy, provided the landlord proves the damage was not fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy. It also requires the tenant to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when the tenancy ends, and to remove all rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $475 for oven cleaning and wall repairs, reducing the initial claim due to the tenants' efforts to mitigate costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $475 for oven cleaning and wall repairs, reducing the initial claim due to the tenants' efforts to mitigate costs. The Tribunal ruled that the landlord proved the damage was not fair wear and tear, thus making the tenants responsible for the repairs.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5082549 1
[2025] NZTT 5082549, 5091668
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenants
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] as Agent for [NAME] $475.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Oven/stove cleaning $75.00 Wall repairs $400.00 Total award $475.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $475.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenants were represented by [NAME].
2. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. The tenants then filed an application seeking exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to release the bond.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5082549 2
4. A prior adjournment sought by the landlord was granted on condition that the landlord release the undisputed part of the bond. The whole of the bond has now been released to the tenants.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
5. At the end of the tenancy a 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.
6. The landlord claims $200.00 for the cost of cleaning the oven. A comparison of the entry and exit inspection photographs of the oven shows that at the end of the tenancy the oven was not reasonably clean. The exit photos though only show that an aluminium liner needed to be replaced and an oven dish needed cleaning, they do not show that the oven itself was unclean, which is consistent with the tenants’ evidence that the oven was only very rarely used.
7. The compensation awarded is reduced accordingly.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
8. 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.
9. It is no dispute that during the tenancy dents were made in the wall above a window and four screw holes were left on another wall where a security camera had been mounted. Marks on the ensuite wall needed repainting.
10. The tenants accepted that they should repair that damage.
11. The issue is the cost. [NAME] says he had obtained an estimate of $180-200.00 for the cost of that work to be done by an acquaintance who works as a painter, but was not given the opportunity to have that acquaintance do the work. The property manager says that the owner wanted the work done by a tradesperson. She says the quote from the landlord’s contractor was provided to the tenants who were given the opportunity to have a quote for an equivalent quality of work obtained. The tenants deny being given that opportunity.
12. Section 49 RTA requires that:
“Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5082549 3
to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
13. That means the tenants should be given fair opportunity to reinstate the damage at their cost but the repairs need to properly reinstate the premises (see also s.42B RTA).
14. My assessment of the evidence is that:
a. it is unlikely that the tenants could have had satisfactory reinstatement work, which required patching the walls and paint matching – perhaps requiring repainting the whole of the affected wall – for $180-$200.00; but that
b. had they been given appropriate opportunity, the tenants may well have been able to have the work done satisfactorily for less than the amount quoted by the owner’s contractor.
15. The compensation awarded takes those factors into account
16. The landlord claims the cost of replacing two bathroom/toilet privacy locks that were removed during the tenancy.
17. The tenants’ evidence is that one of the occupants was locked in the bathroom when the lock would not work. [NAME] tried to phone the property manager who was not immediately available (but was at an adjoining property). The Fire Service was called. They attended, removed the lock and also removed the privacy lock on another door, on the basis that it was likely to do the same thing.
18. The tenant showed the lock in question at the hearing. It appears to have failed through wear and tear. That being so, the tenant is not responsible for the cost of replacing it (see. s49A(2) RTA).
19. The other lock was removed by the Fire Service. Its loss was not caused by an intentional or careless act or omission of the tenants so the tenants are not liable for cost of replacing that second lock (see s.49A and 49B RTA).
20. There is no justification for the landlord having failed to release to the tenants the part of the their bond the landlord was not claiming.
21. However, failing to do so is not an act defined as unlawful by the RTA so it is not something for which an award of exemplary damages may be made. As noted, the whole of the bond has now been released to the tenants.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5082549 4
22. No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.
[NAME]
11 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5082549 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5082549 6
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 tenants accepted responsibility for the wall repairs.
- The tenants were not responsible for the cost of replacing the privacy locks due to wear and tear.
- The landlord was required to release the bond to the tenants.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenants argued they should only pay $180-200 for wall repairs, but the court found this insufficient.
- The tenants claimed they were not given the opportunity to obtain a quote for equivalent quality work, but the court disagreed.
- The tenants sought exemplary damages for the landlord's failure to release the bond, but the court ruled this was not covered under the RTA.
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 tenants to pay $475 for oven cleaning and wall repairs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the responsibility for oven cleaning and wall repairs at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenants were responsible for the repairs because the landlord proved the damage was not fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was whether the damage was fair wear and tear or if the tenants were responsible for the repairs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenants who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any damage to the premises is either fair wear and tear or that they have mitigated the costs of repairs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included entry and exit inspection photographs of the oven and the condition of the walls.