What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953758 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4953758?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing/Fridge: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Ranchslider: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Tidying Etc: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Window: $251.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953758?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953758?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11865928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953758 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4953758?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing/Fridge: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Ranchslider: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Tidying Etc: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Window: $251.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953758?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953758?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11865928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36 Cascade Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953758 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

36 Cascade Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953758 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953758 — net $8,620.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 November 2024	$3,000.00	Rent arrears to 2 November 2024
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: tidying etc	$1,250.00	Repairs: tidying etc
Repairs: Insurance excess x 7	$5,250.00	Repairs: Insurance excess x 7
Repairs: ranchslider	$184.00	Repairs: ranchslider
Repairs: window	$251.00	Repairs: window
Repairs: plumbing/fridge	$218.50	Repairs: plumbing/fridge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,620.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,620.50

Claims and awards for application 4953758 — net $8,620.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 November 2024

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 November 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $800.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Repairs: tidying etc

Amount: $1,250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: tidying etc

Repairs: Insurance excess x 7

Amount: $5,250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Insurance excess x 7

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jessica Harris must pay [the landlord] $8,620.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3457834-002) to [the landlord] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by phone. The tenant was reached by phone. She said that she was at a WINZ meeting. It was explained to her that she had not made any application for an adjournment of the hearing and so the hearing would proceed. She did not remain on the call and the hearing proceeded without her.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Following the hearing, I issued a minute seeking clarification of the insurance excesses noting: The insurance company charged for 6 excesses, totalling $5250. The 6 accepted insurance claims discussed at the hearing were: a. Lounge carpet b. Dishwasher c. Damage to ceiling in hallway d. Damage to ceiling in dining room e. Damage to garage f. Replacement locks. According to the email dated 31 December 2024 from the insurers, there was no excess for the lock replacement, leaving only 5 excesses. It is evident from the insurer’s email dated 5 February 2025 that the insurers deducted 6 excesses. The landlord is given a further opportunity to clarify what the 6 insurance excesses were for.
The landlord provided a further email from the insurer which clarifies the situation as outlined below.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,000. The amount ordered is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The key replacement came to $1,193.57, but it was covered by insurance with no excess.
The photographs provided by the landlord showed that no attempt had been made to clean or remove rubbish. There was a thick layer of fat at the bottom of the oven, all surfaces were dirty, the bathroom had not been cleaned. The carpet was filthy. There was a lot of abandoned items and rubbish. The photos are consistent with the landlord’s description of the house as “a tip”.
The landlord submitted an invoice of $800 for cleaning which is reasonable.
The landlord was assisted to remove rubbish and claimed only $40.00 for tip fees.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Some chattels were removed, including a dryer, fridge freezer and dishwasher. The tenants told the landlord that they were burgled just before they moved out, but the landlords believe that the tenants took them, along with blinds, shelves and other fixtures. Light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries were also missing.
There was other damage to the property outlined below, including removal of security cameras, cutting of a hole in the roof to put power to the shed, cutting of holes in ceilings.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. I find it unlikely that the dishwasher and fridge freezer that were plumbed into the house were removed in a burglary. I find it more likely than not that the tenant or her associates removed them.
Some of these items have not yet been replaced because the landlord cannot afford to. The applications for reimbursement or compensation for items that the landlord has not yet attended to have been withdrawn and may be brought again under a new application at a later date.
However, the dishwasher has been replaced and covered by insurance.
The landlord provided an email today from IAG which set out the following: Kitchen/Dining:____$8,799.29________$750.00________________$8,049.29 Lounge:_________$4,052.46________$750.00_________________$3,302.46 Bedroom1:_______$1,219.33_________$750.00_________________$469.33 Bedroom2:________$4,128.74________$750.00________________$3,378.74 Bedroom3:_________$2,684.75________$750.00_______________$1,934.75 Hallway:__________$5,592.40________$750.00________________$4,842.40 Garage"Exterior":__$1,086.12_________$750.00_________________$336.12
The excess of $750 is ordered to cover replacement of the dishwasher.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord listed multiple items which were damaged, including those outlined above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The photos show there was considerable damage throughout the premises. The landlord also provided photos showing the state of the property before the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord explained that the payouts outlined above included following 6 matters less an excess of $750: a. Carpet in lounge (one year old). The photographs show heavily stained carpet. b. Damage to ceiling in hallway. A photo shows large cracks in the ceiling. c. Hole in ceiling in dining room. A photo shows a large jagged hole in the ceiling. d. Garage. The landlord explained that the garage had been damaged by the activities of the tenants who had been stripping cars in there. e. Bedrooms x 2. The blinds had been pulled down and there were extensive stains on the carpet.
In addition the landlord produced photographs and invoices proving the amounts claimed for repair of the ranchslider and a window. They also had to pay for a plumber to inspect the wall and surrounds from the removal of the fridge freezer.
The landlord also claimed $1250 for time spent on repairs and tidying at the property. This included puttying and painting the holes where security cameras had been removed, fixing the shower which had been attached to the wall with blutak, repairing the heatlamp, fixing the kitchen benches, cleaning and painting over graffiti, patching the roof where the iron had been cut, replacing a broken latch. The landlord has spent more than 50 hours, but seeks only 50 hours at $25.00 an hour. That is reasonable and is ordered.
The tenant must pay the six insurance excesses totalling $4500 (in addition to the kitchen excess of $750)
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
The landlord has withdrawn her applications for items that have not been repaired or replaced. She may bring a further application in the future.
Because the landlord has been substantially successful, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and her name is suppressed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953758 — net $8,620.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 November 2024	$3,000.00	Rent arrears to 2 November 2024
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: tidying etc	$1,250.00	Repairs: tidying etc
Repairs: Insurance excess x 7	$5,250.00	Repairs: Insurance excess x 7
Repairs: ranchslider	$184.00	Repairs: ranchslider
Repairs: window	$251.00	Repairs: window
Repairs: plumbing/fridge	$218.50	Repairs: plumbing/fridge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,620.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,620.50

Claims and awards for application 4953758 — net $8,620.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 November 2024

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 November 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $800.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Repairs: tidying etc

Amount: $1,250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: tidying etc

Repairs: Insurance excess x 7

Amount: $5,250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Insurance excess x 7

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jessica Harris must pay [the landlord] $8,620.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3457834-002) to [the landlord] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by phone. The tenant was reached by phone. She said that she was at a WINZ meeting. It was explained to her that she had not made any application for an adjournment of the hearing and so the hearing would proceed. She did not remain on the call and the hearing proceeded without her.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Following the hearing, I issued a minute seeking clarification of the insurance excesses noting: The insurance company charged for 6 excesses, totalling $5250. The 6 accepted insurance claims discussed at the hearing were: a. Lounge carpet b. Dishwasher c. Damage to ceiling in hallway d. Damage to ceiling in dining room e. Damage to garage f. Replacement locks. According to the email dated 31 December 2024 from the insurers, there was no excess for the lock replacement, leaving only 5 excesses. It is evident from the insurer’s email dated 5 February 2025 that the insurers deducted 6 excesses. The landlord is given a further opportunity to clarify what the 6 insurance excesses were for.
The landlord provided a further email from the insurer which clarifies the situation as outlined below.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,000. The amount ordered is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The key replacement came to $1,193.57, but it was covered by insurance with no excess.
The photographs provided by the landlord showed that no attempt had been made to clean or remove rubbish. There was a thick layer of fat at the bottom of the oven, all surfaces were dirty, the bathroom had not been cleaned. The carpet was filthy. There was a lot of abandoned items and rubbish. The photos are consistent with the landlord’s description of the house as “a tip”.
The landlord submitted an invoice of $800 for cleaning which is reasonable.
The landlord was assisted to remove rubbish and claimed only $40.00 for tip fees.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Some chattels were removed, including a dryer, fridge freezer and dishwasher. The tenants told the landlord that they were burgled just before they moved out, but the landlords believe that the tenants took them, along with blinds, shelves and other fixtures. Light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries were also missing.
There was other damage to the property outlined below, including removal of security cameras, cutting of a hole in the roof to put power to the shed, cutting of holes in ceilings.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. I find it unlikely that the dishwasher and fridge freezer that were plumbed into the house were removed in a burglary. I find it more likely than not that the tenant or her associates removed them.
Some of these items have not yet been replaced because the landlord cannot afford to. The applications for reimbursement or compensation for items that the landlord has not yet attended to have been withdrawn and may be brought again under a new application at a later date.
However, the dishwasher has been replaced and covered by insurance.
The landlord provided an email today from IAG which set out the following: Kitchen/Dining:____$8,799.29________$750.00________________$8,049.29 Lounge:_________$4,052.46________$750.00_________________$3,302.46 Bedroom1:_______$1,219.33_________$750.00_________________$469.33 Bedroom2:________$4,128.74________$750.00________________$3,378.74 Bedroom3:_________$2,684.75________$750.00_______________$1,934.75 Hallway:__________$5,592.40________$750.00________________$4,842.40 Garage"Exterior":__$1,086.12_________$750.00_________________$336.12
The excess of $750 is ordered to cover replacement of the dishwasher.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord listed multiple items which were damaged, including those outlined above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The photos show there was considerable damage throughout the premises. The landlord also provided photos showing the state of the property before the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord explained that the payouts outlined above included following 6 matters less an excess of $750: a. Carpet in lounge (one year old). The photographs show heavily stained carpet. b. Damage to ceiling in hallway. A photo shows large cracks in the ceiling. c. Hole in ceiling in dining room. A photo shows a large jagged hole in the ceiling. d. Garage. The landlord explained that the garage had been damaged by the activities of the tenants who had been stripping cars in there. e. Bedrooms x 2. The blinds had been pulled down and there were extensive stains on the carpet.
In addition the landlord produced photographs and invoices proving the amounts claimed for repair of the ranchslider and a window. They also had to pay for a plumber to inspect the wall and surrounds from the removal of the fridge freezer.
The landlord also claimed $1250 for time spent on repairs and tidying at the property. This included puttying and painting the holes where security cameras had been removed, fixing the shower which had been attached to the wall with blutak, repairing the heatlamp, fixing the kitchen benches, cleaning and painting over graffiti, patching the roof where the iron had been cut, replacing a broken latch. The landlord has spent more than 50 hours, but seeks only 50 hours at $25.00 an hour. That is reasonable and is ordered.
The tenant must pay the six insurance excesses totalling $4500 (in addition to the kitchen excess of $750)
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
The landlord has withdrawn her applications for items that have not been repaired or replaced. She may bring a further application in the future.
Because the landlord has been substantially successful, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and her name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953758 — Property damage at 36 Cascade Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953758 — Property damage at 36 Cascade Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions