Fridge Damage Dispute Turns Costly: Tribunal Splits $3,600 Bond

In August 2025, the New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal issued a decision on a bond refund and property damage dispute, awarding the landlord $1,912.93 and returning the balance to the tenants. 

Read the full decision (PDF).

This fridge damage case highlights key legal principles under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), particularly the standards for cleanliness, the definition of “reasonably tidy,” and the evidential burden in proving property damage beyond fair wear and tear.

Key Takeaways:

•  The Tribunal awarded $1,912.93 for proven damages, including fridge dents and carpet stains.

• “Reasonably clean and tidy” refers to ordinary cleanliness, not spotless conditions.

• Claims were rejected due to a lack of photographic or documentary proof.

• The landlord must prove damages, and costs must directly relate to tenant actions.

• The decision ensures tenants are only charged for substantiated damages, while landlords are fairly compensated.

This case highlights the importance of knowing tenant obligations in NZ and how they impact bond refund disputes.

Case overview

• Tenant background: The tenancy ended in February 2025, causing the landlord to seek damage compensation, a bond refund, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The total bond held was $3,600. Both parties attended the hearing.

• Landlord’s claims: The landlord alleged the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and sought compensation mainly for fridge freezer damage, damaged curtains, carpet stains, a broken curtain rod, missing Yale bolts, porch stains, and minor fixture replacements.

• Tenants’ response: The tenants argued they left the home reasonably clean and tidy, denied damage, and provided photodocumentation to support their response. They accepted liability for only a few minor issues like carpet stains, missing yale bolts, and pot-plant marks.

• Outcome: The Tribunal ruled partly in the landlord’s favor, awarding him $1,912.93 from the bond for proven damages and cleaning costs. It also dismissed most claims for lack of evidence or as fair wear and tear.

Tribunal findings

The Tribunal carefully examined each claim in the fridge damage case, weighing the landlord’s evidence, tenant explanations, and the standards set out under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. It evaluated photos, invoices, and inspection reports to determine rightfully proven damages, conditions of fair wear and tear, and fair distribution of compensation.

Fridge freezer dents and replacement costs

The landlord proved that the fridge-freezer sustained dents and scratches beyond fair wear and tear. 

• Evidence: Photographs and exit inspection reports show dents on the stainless-steel fridge doors. Proof of purchase was also shown to prove the appliance’s reasonable lifespan.

• Landlord’s Argument: The fridge was new at tenancy start and left with visible dents inconsistent with normal use. It was still well within the 8-year lifespan from purchase as determined by The Inland Revenues.

• Tenants’ Response: Tenants could not explain how the debts appeared and did not notice them due to pictures and magnets placed on the doors during their tenancy.

• Tribunal Decision: The tenants were responsible for the depreciated replacement cost of the appliance; for this finding, $524.79 was awarded to the landlord.

Double curtain rod replacement

The landlord demonstrated that a curtain rod was broken and required replacement.

• Evidence: Photo shows a broken double curtain rod in the master bedroom. 

• Tribunal Reasoning and Decision: The tribunal accepted the presented evidence; $240 compensation was awarded for replacement.

  
  

Missing yale bolts

The Tribunal agreed that two yale bolts were missing from internal doors when the tenancy ended.

• Landlord’s Argument: The landlord claimed the need to reinstall the bolts for the window to be open or locked.

• Tenants’ Response: Tenants removed the bolts; they accepted responsibility for the two missing bolts.

• Tribunal Decision: The items were indeed missing; $119.24 was awarded to the landlord.

Carpet stain cleaning

The landlord was successfully awarded compensation for carpet stains that required professional cleaning.

• Evidence: Photographs showed a brown carpet stain found in the first left bedroom. 

• Tenant’s Response: Tenants accepted liability, saying they had not noticed the stain and would have done cleaning had they seen it during their stay. 

• Tribunal Decision: $138.50 compensation sought by the landlord was awarded.

Deck and porch marks

The Tribunal found staining on the porch and decking beyond fair wear.

• Evidence: Photos showed dark pot-plant rings on the front porch and rear deck which were not present before the tenancy. 

• Landlord’s Argument: Landlord claimed deck and porch marks persisted during the tenancy and were not cleaned.

• Tenants’ Response: Tenants accepted liability.

• Tribunal Decision: The tribunal agreed with the landlord; $34.20 for the materials used to clean the marks and 50% of the labour cost sought, being $55.00, were awarded. Only half the original labour cost was granted because it was deemed higher than necessary.

Curtains

The tribunal dismissed the landlord’s claim due to the curtain being past its expected lifespan.

• Evidence: sufficient evidence of the curtain stains was not provided.

• Tenants’ Claims: The black out curtain for the second to left bedroom was missing at the end of the tenancy.

• Landlord’s Argument: The landlord sought $240.00 compensation to replace the missing curtain. 

• Tribunal Decision: claims were dismissed.

Light bulbs

The landlord was awarded compensation to purchase a new porch light bulb, but not labour costs to install it, as it was deemed unnecessary.

• Evidence: Evidence was provided showing the light bulb on the kitchen front porch was not working when the tenants took over the property.

• Tenants’ Response: The light bulb was working when they left on 18 January 2025, and they would have replaced it had they known it was not functional.

• Tribunal Decision: The tribunal was satisfied with the evidence and awarded the landlord $14.99 to purchase a new bulb. The $36.88 labour cost was deemed excessive for simple installation.

Grass damage

Tenants accepted liability for grass damage, but the landlord was awarded only a percentage of the total Elite invoice for the proven claims.

• Tenants’ Response: The tenants accepted the grass damage was due to the trampoline they placed.

• Tribunal Decision: The compensation for this claim is part of the $506.99 from the Elite invoice. The Tribunal granted the landlord 20% of the total Elite invoice for all proven claims.

General cleanliness and condition

The Tribunal decided the tenants left the property in a “reasonably clean and tidy” state.

• Evidence: Inspection photos showing tidy rooms and acceptable cleanliness.

• Landlord’s Argument: Landlord asserted that additional cleaning was required.

• Tribunal Decision: It held that “reasonably clean and tidy” does not mean immaculate; cleaning claims were dismissed.

Outcome / ruling

Overall, the Tribunal awarded the landlord $1,912.93 from the bond and ordered the remaining $1,687.07 to be returned to the tenants. Both parties were granted name suppression since neither engaged in misconduct, and publication was not in the public interest. The adjudicator concluded that while minor damages warranted compensation, the tenants had met their basic obligations and had not caused serious or intentional harm to the property.

Key takeaways for tenants

This case demonstrates how the Tribunal carefully distinguishes minor damage and normal wear and tear, highlighting the importance of maintaining clear documentation to avoid bond refund disputes. Tenants must keep in mind the following:

• Always take clear entry and exit photos to prove the property condition.

• Reasonably clean and tidy does not mean immaculate or hotel conditions, but it must meet a hygienic, livable, and proper standard.

• Challenge excessive claims. You have the right to dispute damages that resemble normal wear and tear or lack sufficient proof.

• Know what the bond covers. It is not a penalty, but protection for proven losses only. If the evidence is weak, you are entitled to your refund.

• Gradual damage or age-related deterioration usually remains the landlord’s responsibility.

Ultimately, the decision shows that evidence backs up decisions and determines outcomes in end-of-tenancy disputes. For landlords looking to build long-term wealth, it’s crucial to understand the broader picture of property investment, including the reasons for property investment

Insights from the tribunal’s ruling

This ruling reinforces the Tribunal’s balanced approach in bond disputes: landlords must substantiate every claim, while tenants benefit from demonstrating reasonable care and documentation. The adjudicator’s reliance on depreciation schedules and fair-wear-and-tear standards ensures outcomes remain proportionate. 

For both landlords and tenants, the Fridge Damage Case underscores the importance of evidence, clarity, and compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to effectively manage property damage claims. Investors can learn valuable lessons from this, especially in times of market fluctuations, such as the lessons from market downturns.

Need guidance on preparing for a tenancy hearing or protecting your bond? Visit Staircase for practical tools and expert support.