What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5060740 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 5060740?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Warrant: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,490.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $166.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,230.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $5,080.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $3,375.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $479.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Garage Door: $899.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven: $384.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,712.00 awarded to landlord; Second Eviction Warrant: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $395.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060740?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11802208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5060740 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 5060740?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Warrant: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,490.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $166.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,230.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $5,080.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $3,375.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $479.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Garage Door: $899.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven: $384.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,712.00 awarded to landlord; Second Eviction Warrant: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $395.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060740?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11802208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5060740 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060740 — net $16,254.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 23 March 2025	$395.21	Water rates to 23 March 2025
Rent arrears to 23 March 2025	$5,230.00	Rent arrears to 23 March 2025
Eviction warrant	$258.00	Eviction warrant
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$2,712.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$1,490.00	Window repairs
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Second eviction warrant	$258.00	Eviction warrant
Lock/key replacement	$166.75	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Walls	$5,080.00	Repairs: Walls
Replace furnishings: carpet	$3,375.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: dishwasher	$479.50	Replace furnishings: dishwasher
Replace furnishings: oven	$384.00	Replace furnishings: oven
Replace furnishings: garage door	$899.00	Replace furnishings: garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,254.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,254.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Hinerangi Wellington must pay [The landlord/s] $10,921.96 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and did not respond when telephoned on the number ending in 663.
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bonds, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
These claims are split across two claims filed by the landlord in respect of the tenancy. The first (5060740) was in relation to a previous termination by the Tribunal for rent arrears in 2024. The landlord used a court bailiff who evicted the tenant and at that time the locks were changed. A bond amount of $2,720.00 is held in respect of this tenancy (6191419-001).
The landlord agreed to a new tenancy with the tenant, and a second bond of $2,760.00 was paid (BN-00022974). However, the tenant failed to pay rent and a second conditional termination order was issued by the Tribunal. The tenant breached the order, and the tenancy was terminated.
The landlord again used a court bailiff to evict the tenant, and the locks were changed again.
The landlord filed a second claim (5218771) seeking the cost of these evictions, rent arrears, lock changes, outstanding water rates and damage discovered at the property after the tenant had vacated.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $5,230.00 for rent and $395.21 for water at the end of the tenancy.

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)(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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has provided photographs of considerable amounts of rubbish and belongings left at the property and cleaning was required. Invoices have been provided of $2,712.00 for rubbish removal and $750.00 for cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved. Eviction and locksmith costs
The landlord claims for two eviction warrants of $258.00 each and changing the locks twice (as required by the bailiff) at the invoiced costs of $230.00 and $166.75.
These costs were reasonably incurred due to the tenant and are so ordered. The law on damage to the premises
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 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.
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. Damages claimed in respect of the property
The landlord claims for damage to the windows, dishwasher, oven, garage doors, walls, and carpet. None of the damage was notified during the tenancy.
The landlord claims for intentional damage to the windows and submits that approximately 13 windows were broken throughout the property.
The photographs show large breaks to the glass in several locations. The landlord has provided an invoice for the window repairs of $1,490.00 (that records that there were 13 separate broken windows). I am satisfied that there were careless or intentional holes throughout the property based on the photographs, and the amount of $1,490.00 is awarded for this repair.
The landlord claims for intentional damage throughout the walls of the property, including for plaster, wall repair and painting. The photographs provided show obvious holes throughout the walls in the property. Two invoices have been provided, an initial one for plastering of $280.00 and a further invoice for interior wall repair and painting of $4,800.00. I have no evidence to suggest that this damage was not intentional and the consistent and substantial damage throughout the property supports a finding of intentional damage. These costs are awarded.
The landlord claims for the cost of new carpet, due to excessive staining throughout the property. The landlord says that the damage must have been intentional, due to its excessiveness. The carpet was estimated to be around seven-eight years old. The amount claimed is based on a square metre measurement of $45/m2 x 150/m2 and an invoice has been provided for $6,750.00. I accept that based on the photographs provided, the carpet was significantly damaged during the tenancy. I have no evidence to the contrary and accept the landlords’ position that this damage was likely intentional, it appears at least that the tenant continued to use the property in a way knowing that ongoing staining was a certainty. The carpet, however, was not new and that landlord should not be in a better position because of the tenants’ breach. I have therefore only awarded 50% of the claimed carpet cost – being $3,375.00.
Similarly, the landlord says that during the tenancy the dishwasher and oven were damaged and required replacement. Photographs and an invoice have been provided of $959.00 for the dishwasher and $768.00 for the oven (including installation for both). These items were estimated to be approximately seven-eight years old. Accordingly, I have again awarded 50% of the claimed costs, amounting to $479.50 for the dishwasher and $384.00 for the oven.
The photographs show that the garage doors were extensively damaged, with large rips, dents, and tears across the garage doors. The landlord claims the replacement cost of $1,798.00 being the replacement cost for two individual doors. I have assumed the garage doors were of the similar age to the remainder of the property, and so again have awarded 50% of the total claimed costs, totalling $899.00.
There were other items that the landlord was required to repair at the end of the tenancy, including light fittings and the bathroom exhaust fan, however, these were not pursued at the hearing, and I have not considered these further. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken windows, holes in walls, damaged carpet, oven, dishwasher, and garage doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 6 May 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060740 — net $16,254.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 23 March 2025	$395.21	Water rates to 23 March 2025
Rent arrears to 23 March 2025	$5,230.00	Rent arrears to 23 March 2025
Eviction warrant	$258.00	Eviction warrant
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$2,712.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$1,490.00	Window repairs
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Second eviction warrant	$258.00	Eviction warrant
Lock/key replacement	$166.75	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Walls	$5,080.00	Repairs: Walls
Replace furnishings: carpet	$3,375.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: dishwasher	$479.50	Replace furnishings: dishwasher
Replace furnishings: oven	$384.00	Replace furnishings: oven
Replace furnishings: garage door	$899.00	Replace furnishings: garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,254.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,254.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Hinerangi Wellington must pay [The landlord/s] $10,921.96 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and did not respond when telephoned on the number ending in 663.
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bonds, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
These claims are split across two claims filed by the landlord in respect of the tenancy. The first (5060740) was in relation to a previous termination by the Tribunal for rent arrears in 2024. The landlord used a court bailiff who evicted the tenant and at that time the locks were changed. A bond amount of $2,720.00 is held in respect of this tenancy (6191419-001).
The landlord agreed to a new tenancy with the tenant, and a second bond of $2,760.00 was paid (BN-00022974). However, the tenant failed to pay rent and a second conditional termination order was issued by the Tribunal. The tenant breached the order, and the tenancy was terminated.
The landlord again used a court bailiff to evict the tenant, and the locks were changed again.
The landlord filed a second claim (5218771) seeking the cost of these evictions, rent arrears, lock changes, outstanding water rates and damage discovered at the property after the tenant had vacated.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $5,230.00 for rent and $395.21 for water at the end of the tenancy.

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)(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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has provided photographs of considerable amounts of rubbish and belongings left at the property and cleaning was required. Invoices have been provided of $2,712.00 for rubbish removal and $750.00 for cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved. Eviction and locksmith costs
The landlord claims for two eviction warrants of $258.00 each and changing the locks twice (as required by the bailiff) at the invoiced costs of $230.00 and $166.75.
These costs were reasonably incurred due to the tenant and are so ordered. The law on damage to the premises
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 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.
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. Damages claimed in respect of the property
The landlord claims for damage to the windows, dishwasher, oven, garage doors, walls, and carpet. None of the damage was notified during the tenancy.
The landlord claims for intentional damage to the windows and submits that approximately 13 windows were broken throughout the property.
The photographs show large breaks to the glass in several locations. The landlord has provided an invoice for the window repairs of $1,490.00 (that records that there were 13 separate broken windows). I am satisfied that there were careless or intentional holes throughout the property based on the photographs, and the amount of $1,490.00 is awarded for this repair.
The landlord claims for intentional damage throughout the walls of the property, including for plaster, wall repair and painting. The photographs provided show obvious holes throughout the walls in the property. Two invoices have been provided, an initial one for plastering of $280.00 and a further invoice for interior wall repair and painting of $4,800.00. I have no evidence to suggest that this damage was not intentional and the consistent and substantial damage throughout the property supports a finding of intentional damage. These costs are awarded.
The landlord claims for the cost of new carpet, due to excessive staining throughout the property. The landlord says that the damage must have been intentional, due to its excessiveness. The carpet was estimated to be around seven-eight years old. The amount claimed is based on a square metre measurement of $45/m2 x 150/m2 and an invoice has been provided for $6,750.00. I accept that based on the photographs provided, the carpet was significantly damaged during the tenancy. I have no evidence to the contrary and accept the landlords’ position that this damage was likely intentional, it appears at least that the tenant continued to use the property in a way knowing that ongoing staining was a certainty. The carpet, however, was not new and that landlord should not be in a better position because of the tenants’ breach. I have therefore only awarded 50% of the claimed carpet cost – being $3,375.00.
Similarly, the landlord says that during the tenancy the dishwasher and oven were damaged and required replacement. Photographs and an invoice have been provided of $959.00 for the dishwasher and $768.00 for the oven (including installation for both). These items were estimated to be approximately seven-eight years old. Accordingly, I have again awarded 50% of the claimed costs, amounting to $479.50 for the dishwasher and $384.00 for the oven.
The photographs show that the garage doors were extensively damaged, with large rips, dents, and tears across the garage doors. The landlord claims the replacement cost of $1,798.00 being the replacement cost for two individual doors. I have assumed the garage doors were of the similar age to the remainder of the property, and so again have awarded 50% of the total claimed costs, totalling $899.00.
There were other items that the landlord was required to repair at the end of the tenancy, including light fittings and the bathroom exhaust fan, however, these were not pursued at the hearing, and I have not considered these further. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken windows, holes in walls, damaged carpet, oven, dishwasher, and garage doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 6 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060740 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060740 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions