What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5083488 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Deb & Rob Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5083488?

Cleaning: $331.66 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $386.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filling Holes From Wall Heater: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $157.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $38.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.46 awarded to landlord; Removing Resin From Tub: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $117.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083488?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647379-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5083488 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Deb & Rob Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5083488?

Cleaning: $331.66 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $386.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filling Holes From Wall Heater: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $157.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $38.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.46 awarded to landlord; Removing Resin From Tub: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $117.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083488?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647379-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 Te Awa Avenue, Te Awa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5083488 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083488. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$157.50	Lock/key replacement
Curtain track replacement	$84.30	Curtain track replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$331.66	Carpet Cleaning
Dog damage	$200.00	Dog damage
Damage to woodburner	$500.00	Damage to woodburner
Garage door compensation	$386.50	Garage door compensation
Down pipe repair	$38.91	Down pipe repair
Filling holes from wall heater	$20.00	Filling holes from wall heater
Plug replacement	$4.00	Plug replacement
Lamp holder replacement	$63.46	Lamp holder replacement
Removing resin from tub	$15.00	Removing resin from tub
Smoke alarm replacement	$117.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Rubbish removal	$60.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083488. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$157.50	Lock/key replacement
Curtain track replacement	$84.30	Curtain track replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$331.66	Carpet Cleaning
Dog damage	$200.00	Dog damage
Damage to woodburner	$500.00	Damage to woodburner
Garage door compensation	$386.50	Garage door compensation
Down pipe repair	$38.91	Down pipe repair
Filling holes from wall heater	$20.00	Filling holes from wall heater
Plug replacement	$4.00	Plug replacement
Lamp holder replacement	$63.46	Lamp holder replacement
Removing resin from tub	$15.00	Removing resin from tub
Smoke alarm replacement	$117.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Rubbish removal	$60.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Deb & Rob Properties Limited $1,045.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$157.50 Curtain track replacement$84.30 Carpet Cleaning$331.66 Dog damage$200.00 Damage to woodburner$500.00 Garage door compensation$386.50 Down pipe repair$38.91 Filling holes from wall heater$20.00 Plug replacement$4.00 Lamp holder replacement$63.46 Removing resin from tub$15.00 Smoke alarm replacement$117.00 Rubbish removal$60.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,005.33 Minus bond already released to landlord-$960.00 Total payable by Tenants to Landlord$1,045.33
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The matter returns to the Tribunal by way of a rehearing granted. As I explained to the landlord at the hearing, that means I must consider the matter afresh. I do not consider the findings made by the previous adjudicator, so my conclusions on any claim could be the same or they could be different.
I also note that at the hearing before myself on 29 October 2025, the landlord presented amended claims. I will discuss this further below.

BACKGROUND

This is a tenancy of long duration, commencing on 26 February 2011. The landlord states on the application form that the tenancy ended on 30 September 2024. The tenancy, therefore, was 13 years and 7 months in duration.
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Deb and Rob Properties Limited, and two co-tenants, as [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and Brendan Ferris. The rent at the start of the tenancy was $320.00 per week, with a required bond of $960.00. The agreement allowed for “x 1 cat”, but otherwise that is inconsistent with the later reference in the agreement to “no pets”.
After the first few years of the tenancy, Mr Ferris moved out, but no evidence has been presented to show that the tenancy agreement was varied to remove Mr Ferris as the tenant.
Ultimately, the tenancy boxed on over the years. I can see that intermittent inspections were done, and some maintenance based on messages on file. The tenant has described a challenging relationship with Mr Tranter.
In the few months prior to the end of the tenancy, the landlord appointed a property manager, that is Mr Hall. Mr Hall undertook an inspection of the property, and has provided a comprehensive inspection report dated 4 June 2024. Mr Hall records that the tenant presented the house in a fair standard, and of relevance, did not report many of the items of damage or deterioration that the landlord has now claimed as being longstanding.
But as indicated above, the landlord reports that the tenancy came to an end on 30 September 2024.
On 25 November 2024, the landlord filed this application with the Tribunal. The original claim was for compensation of $100,000.00.
The matter came to a hearing before Adjudicator King. Mr King issued a decision on 27 May 2025. Various claims were found in the landlord’s favour; others were not. The end result was that the tenant was ordered to pay the sum of $5,767.75. The full bond was ordered to be released to the landlord to offset that amount. In the order, the adjudicator referred to a spreadsheet which he appended at the conclusion of the order, setting out the landlords claims.
The landlord applied for a rehearing. A range of grounds were presented for that, with two of those grounds being accepted, that was on the basis that the landlord advised he had hearing difficulties and could not properly follow the hearing, and secondly, because the adjudicator accepted that he had not considered the insurance documentation that had been filed.
A rehearing was then scheduled and convened on 29 October 2025 before myself.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore, I proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
I note that the tenant has provided a fulsome written response to the landlord’s claims as they were at the time of the hearing with Mr King. I will refer to those responses below.
At the hearing on 29 October 2025, the landlord stated that all of the relevant documents had been provided. However, the landlord also produced a USB stick stating that contained the relevant information. At the hearing, I was able to confirm that some of the information on the USB stick was not on the Tribunal’s electronic record. I also confirm that one of the documents on the USB stick includes an updated spreadsheet. This was different to that considered by Mr King. I have therefore considered the claim based on the content on the USB drive as being the most updated version of the landlord’s evidence and case, but I have also considered the documents on the file. In short, the landlord advanced the case based on some material not before the Tribunal at the first hearing.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

Mr Hall is the property manager who took over the tenancy about six months prior to the tenancy end date, and he attended the hearing to provide evidence for the landlord. I note that much of the evidence as follows was Mr Hall responding to my specific questions in relation to the claims Mr Tranter confirmed at the hearing (as set out below): a. Mr Hall’s view is that the tenant was dishonest, such as the removal of smoke alarm, and was not proactive with addressing rent arrears, and being difficult to deal with. b. At the end of the tenancy, the tenancy was not cleaned to the standard the tenant stated, such as having steam cleaned the walls. There were marks from people rubbing up against the walls and doors, as reflected in the photographs. c. Approximately two keys and one garage door remote were returned at the end of the tenancy. d. Mr Hall could not recall any issues with the bathroom fan. e. There was paint splatter on the wall at the end of the hallway, but it was not on the carpet, which was not present at the time of the first inspection. f. In relation to windows and window sills, there was some damage from animals, but Mr Hall cannot recall damage other than what the dog had done. g. In the kitchen there was damage toward the bottom of the cabinet, and a broken handle on the dishwasher. The waste disposal was not working it has ceased. h. There was something wrong in the laundry but Mr Hall could not recall what it was. i. Mr Hall could not recall damage to the bathroom vanity. j. There was a burn mark on the new carpet in front of the wood burner. Animal urine marks were present throughout the house. k. Mr Hall could not recall damage to the garage door. l. Mr Hall could not recall any downpipes being broken. m. With the pedestrian door into the garage, there was damage to a hinge, potentially from the door blowing open. n. Damage could not be recalled to the front door. o. Damage could not be recalled to power points.
Mr Trantor did not have any further questions for Mr Hall.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

One of the challenges in this case, is determining what the landlord’s claims are. The landlord’s claims have changed overtime. The claims that were advanced before the Adjudicator King are different to those advanced before myself, the landlord has also added additional claims.
At the hearing I asked the landlord to set out what his claims were, which he did.
As indicated above, Mr King in the earlier hearing included the spreadsheet that he considered to be the claims before himself. The landlord amended that spreadsheet, and has presented it as the claims to now be considered. That was on the USB drive provided at the hearing. I have copied that at the end of this decision.
There is a discrepancy between the claims that were raised at the hearing, and those in the spreadsheet. The landlord also provided a written document, which he read through in the hearing, and again that did not necessarily match the spreadsheet or the confirmed claims either.
I have proceeded on the basis that the landlord’s claims, are those set out in the spreadsheet as well as the claims confirmed by the landlord at the start of the hearing, which are set out below.
Again, at the hearing, I asked the landlord to set out verbally what their claims were; those are set out below: a. Key replacement b. Garage door remote replacement c. Failure to advise maintenance required d. Curtains and rail replacement e. Cleaning i. Walls ii. Drain flush iii. Bathroom fan clean f. Damage i. Paint on wall in hallway ii. Repair damage walls and window sills iii. Fireplace repairs iv. Laundry window repair v. Kitchen damage vi. Laundry tub and vanity, Disconnect and reconnect vanity plumbing vii. Carpet replacement in lounge viii. Garage door repair ix. Replace downpipe connection x. Garage door repair (person door) xi. Front door repair xii. Power point replacement xiii. Wall holes in hallway from heater that was removed. xiv. Sink plugs (kitchen and bathroom) xv. Replacing grout (from leak in toilet pipe) xvi. Broken lamp holder.
Rubbish removal a. Barbeque removal
Exemplary damages a. Failure to notify change of address b. Smoke alarm breaches c. Failure to reinstate premises following minor change
While not raised in the list of claims at the hearing, the landlord has also claimed the following costs in the spreadsheet: a. Rent loss b. Laundry window c. Kitchen wall repair d. Carpet cleaning e. Door and architrave repairs f. Scraping resin from laundry tub

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the landlord in this case), must establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
Importantly, it is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In order to establish the claims, it is the landlord who must prove them, the obligation is not on the tenant.

CORRECT TENANTS

The tenancy agreement records that there are two co-tenants, Ms Clarke and Mr Ferris.
A communication has been provided from Mr Ferris dated 12 May 2025, where Mr Ferris records that he has not lived in the premises since 2014, and that he disputes causing any damage to the premises. While that may be the case, I have seen no evidence that the tenancy agreement has been varied to remove Mr Ferris as a tenant.
A person can rent a tenancy, and not live there, but still be liable for the premises. If a co-tenant wishes to end their liability for a tenancy, they can either give notice ending the whole of the tenancy (or obtain an order from the Tribunal ending the tenancy) or they can agree on a variation of the agreement to remove them from the contract. On the evidence available, Ms Clarke and Mr Ferris continue to be co-tenants, and will be jointly and severally liable for any orders made.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the landlord’s claims. In doing so, as I advised Mr Tranter I would do, I have aggregated the claims in relevant groups based on the respective legal obligations.
I also want to note that one of the significant factors in his case, is the length of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord, I do not believe that has been given significant consideration. When a tenant rents premises, particularly for a long period of time, they are not required to return the premises at the end of the tenancy as good as they received it. When people live in houses, there is wear and tear. The rent the tenant pays to the landlord compensates for that. Furthermore, items in houses deteriorate – nothing lasts forever. The tenant is not responsible for wear and tear in a dwelling, nor the deterioration of chattels that will eventually require replacement.
In the life cycle of a residential tenancy, sooner or later, work like repainting and decorating is needed. That would probably be needed every ten years or so, so in the case of this tenancy lasting 13 ½ years, it would be well overdue. The tenant will never be liable for that sort of lifecycle redecorating; that is always a cost the landlord must incur. Even if there was some additional work needed because of a breach on the part of the tenant, the tenant will only be liable for that extra work needed. Claim 1 - Key replacement and garage door remote replacement
The evidence from the landlord is that the tenant did not return all keys, nor all garage remote controls, at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers to the original tenancy agreement, which records that five normal keys, two security keys, and two garage door remote controls were provided at the start of the tenancy.
The evidence of Mr Hall was that there were only two keys that were returned, and one garage remote.
That is also consistent with the tenant’s email to the landlord of 30 September 2024, in which she states that she was leaving two house keys on the bench. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. I am satisfied that the tenant did not do that, so must be liable for the locksmith costs, and time involved for the landlord.
The Locksmith charge was $67.50, and the landlord has claimed for three hours of work to remove the locks, transporting them to the locksmith and then refitting them, plus mileage.
The tenant is liable for the full locksmith cost. I consider the landlord’s claim of $50.00 per hour to be excessive. I consider that an order for time and mileage of $90.00 would be reasonable, so order the tenant to pay a total of $157.50.
I note the tenant is also liable for the garage door remote control replacement, I will order that with the garage door claim below given it falls within the ‘Dominator’ invoice. Claim 2 - Failure to advise maintenance required
The landlord’s position is that the tenant failed to advise the landlord that maintenance was required. The landlord’s position is that the failure resulted in a deterioration of the tenancy, which could have been avoided if maintenance had been notified earlier. Analysis
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes the obligation to notify landlords if maintenance or repairs are needed (s40(1)(d)).
If a tenant fails to advise a landlord of a need for maintenance, that is not deemed to be an unlawful act from which exemplary damages can be ordered, but it could mean that the tenant was responsible for any gradual deterioration to the premises which arose from a failure to notify the landlord.
I will address any potential claims of that nature under the relevant damage claims below. Claim 3 – Curtain track replacement
The landlord states that the tenant had removed the curtains, but also removed the curtain rails when she had Venetian blinds hung. The landlord has claimed costs of one hour work for reinstalling the curtain rail, and also travel.
The landlord accepted at the hearing that the curtains were ‘passed their used-by date’ and there is no claim for those. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return chattels, so that would include the curtain tracks. The landlord states that the tenant removed the curtain tracks, and seeks compensation for those items being replaced.
I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s evidence that the curtain tracks were missing at the end of the tenancy, so the tenant must be liable for the cost of replacing those items.
The landlord has produced an invoice from Mitre 10 for the purchase of two curtain tracks and brackets, totalling $54.30 (including GST). The tenant is liable for those costs and installation, and travel costs, which I fix at $30.00, so the tenant is liable for replacement costs of $84.30. Claim 4 - Cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning costs, in particular, costs for cleaning the walls, a bathroom ceiling fan, and undertaking a drain flush. Analysis
The landlord’s position is that the premises were not returned reasonably clean, and compensation for that is claimed. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Cleaning walls
The landlord’s position is that the walls were dirty and required cleaning and has claimed 8 hours to clean them. Mr Hall gave evidence at the hearing in relation to the walls, advising that he considered that they were dirty, I asked for details around what Mr Hall meant by that. Mr Hall explained that the walls appeared dirty from people rubbing up against the walls, and referred to the photographs.
I have reviewed the photographs, but I am not convinced the walls were dirty. The walls were not immaculate, and no doubt it would be time to repaint the premises after a 13 ½ year tenancy. I consider it likely that the work the landlord did would be work a landlord would likely undertake to prepare premises to be repainted. Overall, the walls appeared to me reasonably clean in the circumstances of this tenancy. Cleaning bathroom fan
The landlord provided a photograph of the bathroom extractor fan, submitting it was not clean.
I have considered the photograph. The fan appeared old, but I am not persuaded it was not reasonably clean.
I note here, that in the spreadsheet the landlord states that he needed to “remove bathroom fan disassemble clean reassemble refit test”, and that it required one hour to complete. No tenant would be expected to disassemble a bathroom extractor fan in order to clean it, and neither would the fact it took the landlord an your, be consistent with work reasonably expected of a tenant with cleaning. Work of that nature would if anything, would be a landlord’s responsibility. Drain flush
The landlord’s position is that the drains were clogged with fat, when the premises were returned. The landlord seeks costs for work to flush the drains. The landlord refers to an invoice from Flushed Drainage dated 18 November 2024, to the sum of $326.00. The invoice records: Water Blast All Waste Pipes in House – Bathroom, Laundry, and Kitchen Waste Pipes are All Clean. Water Blast Kitchen Gully Trap Found Full of Fat. Flushed & Cleared.
I am not persuaded that this work was anything more than maintenance after a 13-year tenancy, which falls into the landlord’s obligations. I note here that the work undertaken was not just to clean the kitchen gully trap but also to clean the pipes in the bathroom, laundry and kitchen. I can see no basis to pass this cost on to the tenant. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement of an invoice from ChemDry dated 20 November 2024, for carpet cleaning, to the sum of $331.66. ChemDry state: 2 large (one very large) Urine stains in Loung, large Urine stain in front Bedroom and other smaller ones. Blood stains in same bedroom, unable to be removed. Cleaned Lounge, 3 Bedrooms and Hallway with Natural 6. Sanitised Urine stains with BIO-SAN II anti-microbial disinfectant. Urine stains have improved a lot. Left DI on two in Lounge No smell so did not treat with PURT.
I accept the description on the ChemDry invoice. I accept the carpets were stained with urine and blood. To that extent, they were not returned to the landlord in a clean state, so the tenant must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost in full. Claim 5 – Damage
The landlord seeks a range of compensation for damage to the premises. I will address the individual claims below.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party claiming the compensation (the landlord in this case) must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
When a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Paint on wall in hallway
The evidence is that there was white paint or similar on a wall in the hallway. That is established in the photographs presented. The landlord disputes that it was caused during his ceiling painting, submitting it was caused by tenant.
The landlord confirmed that he did have the ceilings repainted, no invoice has been provided with the landlord advising me that he got a contractor to do this as a “cash job”.
I note an email from the tenant dated 7 October 2024, in which she disputes responsibility for any paint marks on the walls, rather saying it has been caused from the recent ceiling painters on the premises. Analysis
The photographs support the appearance of what would appear to be paint on a wall. Assuming it is paint, it is white and irregular. I consider it would be consistent with white paint that would be used on a ceiling, so the tenant’s explanation, that it was from the landlord’s contractor, is credible.
I find this claim has not been established for two reasons.
Firstly, while I accept the paint ended up on the wall during the tenancy, the tenant has established that the damage was not caused by herself or someone on the premises with her consent. I consider the most likely situation is that it was from the ceiling painters.
Secondly, even if the tenant had caused the paint on the wall, I would have dismissed this claim given how long it has been since the premises were last painted. At the end of the tenancy the premises would be at the stage of requiring repainting, the landlord would face no additional cost to paint over the wall paint mark, even if the tenant had caused it. Therefore, there is no loss to the landlord. Repair damaged walls, window sills and architraves
The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to walls and windowsills, and also architraves.
I have considered the photographs provided, and broadly those show two types of damage to the walls, windows and architraves.
Firstly, there is expected deterioration that would be anticipated given the age of the premises (fair wear and tear), and the period of time since it was last painted. The tenant is not liable for any painting costs for that, it is a maintenance expense for the landlord.
The other damage appears to be claw marks, probably from a dog. These marks are lines that would be consistent with an animal jumping up on surfaces, scratching the wood. The tenant must be liable for that damage. It occurred during the tenancy, and would be classed as intentional damage given how extensive it was (see the High Court decision of Guo noted above). The tenant must be liable for that. However, this is in the context of premises that certainly were due for repainting. I consider it fair that the tenant pay a contribution to the additional work to fill, sand and prime the claw marks on the wood. In the absence of a professional quotation on the matter, I must determine an amount of compensation that I consider would be a fair contribution for that additional work, which is $200.00. Fireplace repairs
The landlord’s position is that the tenant should be liable for damage to the woodburner, in particular, the glass and the firebricks inside the unit. The landlord refers to the report from John Orringe.
The landlord has provided photographs showing damage to one firebrick inside the log burner, and also damaged glass.
The tenant sent an email to the landlord dated 30 September 2024, where she states that when she was in bed, she heard a noise and the glass in the fireplace was broken, and embers on the floor. The tenant stated that one of the firebricks had blown out, causing the damage to the glass. That was entirely consistent with what the tenant stated in her written submission to the Tribunal. Analysis
A screenshot has been provided of the ‘Jayline’ website, which indicates the landlord paying $406.00, but not what the payment was for (only referencing ‘order #J4113’). I note an email from 4 November 2025 from David Herald at ‘Jaylineparts.co.nz’, reporting the bricks were not available until early 2025.
A statement has been provided from John Orringe, Fire Maintenance Technician in which Mr Orringe states that he considers the glass had been damaged from someone pushing wood into the fireplace using the door. Mr Orringe also disputes that the bricks would explode. The author considers that the brick was damaged by impact. It was recommended to replace the fireplace as being the more cost-effective option, given it had been in use for 2 months since new.
I consider the most likely cause of the damage to the glass and fire brick, would be the cause proposed by Mr Orringe, that is the glass being broken when the door was closed while pushing on wood, and that the brick was damaged from impact. Mr Orringe’s theory makes sense.
I am not convinced there is evidence that would support the fire baffle to be careless or intentional damage.
The tenant must be liable for the cost of the repair to the fireplace. I accept that this would be over the level of the excess, which Mr Tranter stated at the hearing to be $500.00. I do not consider there is evidence to show that the damage was intentional damage, in the sense of the tenant or other person, intending to break the glass or brick, but it was probably careless damage. That means the tenant is liable for the repair cost to the level of the excess, which is $500.00. Window repair
The landlord states that the two front windows were ‘falling out’ and that they had been sellotaped in, and that the lounge window was about to fall out, but was not reported. Analysis
The landlord has not established that the state of the windows is anything other than fair wear and tear, and therefore falling within the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
I would not accept that liability should rest with the tenant for failing to report this maintenance need. It is likely that the underlying problem would be long in the making, so it should have been identified by the landlord or his agent during routine property inspections. Kitchen damage
The landlord considers that the kitchen has been damaged from water or rodents. The landlord says there was leaking plumbing, which the tenant had not reported to the landlord. The landlord considers that caused leaking under the sink, and causing damage to kitchen cabinetry including around the fridge when water would track along the floor. The landlord stated that when the tenant moved in, the kitchen was 12 months old.
The tenant explains in her written submission: we had a leak in the kitchen which came from the dishwasher. On inspection I saw that something had eaten through the wall lining from a hole in the actual house, under the kitchen window. I immediately disconnected the hoses, cleaned up the mess, and to be honest, was way to anxious to tell him and intended to pay for the damage myself before moving. I simply ran out of funds, so attempted to repair the wall with new gib board, leaving the hoses to be replaced.
That is consistent with a text message from 26 February 2024, where the tenant advised the landlord that the night prior, she: noticed a mouse had chewed through the dishwasher hose, so I will get it fixed. So many mice lately in the house on our side...I’ve put out bait and repellant to stop them passing through our property.
The tenant also states in an email from 7 October 2024, that the water came from their fridge during Cyclone Gabriella, when the power to the fridge was off overnight, and water leaked from the fridge. The tenant states she mopped up what she could see, but did not notice any panel damage. That is also consistent with the tenants’ written submission: In Cyclone Gabrielle, as with thousands of others, we lost our fridge/freezer contents. We cleared the fridge/freezer asap and I tried to clean up the water that had leaked the best I could. Amongst all that was going on over the immediate days following the cyclone, I constantly checked the house for damage and sincerely tried to dry all damp surfaces affected by water damage. Analysis
There is no doubt that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and it was probably not fair wear and tear. The primary question becomes whether it was careless or intentional damage, and for these reasons, I find it was not.
The tenant’s position is that the damage was caused by water from the rodent-damaged pipe, and from the fridge when it lost power during Cyclone Gabrielle. Both seem credible, and supported by the contemporaneous evidence (the messages)
The photographs show what is very likely to be water-damaged cabinetry in the refrigerator space. The tenant’s explanation that the cabinetry was damaged when water came from the fridge when it lost power, is credible. As I will touch on shortly, it is plain that the tenant was facing other problems at the house with the cyclone, so it would not be difficult to accept that the full extent of the water leak may not have been appreciated at the time.
The landlord states that there was a leaking fitting under the sink. I am not convinced about that, the photograph inside the sink does not suggest any long term water leak.
But there is ample evidence supporting rodent damage to the dishwasher pipe. I cannot see any basis to say that the tenant is liable for that damage. The damage was reported to the landlord by text, so it was then the landlord’s responsibility to repair the damage, not the tenants.
I am also minded that the statement provided by Bahaa Aborarsh records that the joiner considered the kitchen was “vermin and water damaged”. I am not persuaded there is evidence to show the tenant has caused a vermin issue in these premises, so she would not be liable for vermin damage to the cabinetry. Laundry tub and vanity, Disconnect and reconnect vanity plumbing
The landlord states that the tenant damaged the laundry tub, by water exposure, in particular not putting a tray down to protect the cabinetry from water exposure. The landlord seeks compensation to disconnect and reconnect the plumbing, and installation of a new cabinet. Analysis
I note the inspection report from 4 April 2023, does not record any damage to the laundry joinery.
Nevertheless, the photograph does support damage to the bottom shelf of the laundry cabinet, and that is probably the result of there being moisture or chemical exposure. But given this is a laundry cabinet, such exposure would not be surprising. I am not of the view that this damage would be careless or intentional damage, over the course of a 13-year tenancy. Carpet replacement in lounge
The landlord states that the tenant removed the lounge carpet in 2023 without the landlord’s approval, and that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord states that the tenant did not hand the removed carpet back to the landlord.
Nevertheless, the landlord states that the carpet was replaced in the lounge and that the tenant caused burn damage to the carpet in front of the woodburner. Furthermore, the landlord states there was extensive dog urine staining on the carpet, which necessitated the carpet being replaced. The landlord seeks costs for the second carpet replacement. Analysis
The evidence is that there was carpet in the tenancy in 2011. However the carpet became threadbare and the tenant removed it. The tenant certainly should have told the landlord at the time, but given the photographs showing the very poor condition of that carpet prior to it being removed, I cannot see that the landlord incurred a loss with the removal, as the carpet was in very poor condition.
In more recent times, the landlord had that carpet replaced. The landlord reports that there were burn marks on the new carpet, and also urine stains.
The landlord stated that because of the urine staining, the effects of that urine could not be addressed with carpet cleaning, so the carpet was replaced. For completeness, the landlord’s position is that the carpet was not replaced because of the burn marks. In the application for rehearing, the landlord stated that “the burn on the carpet was not the reason for replacement”.
The landlord has provided a quotation from Carpet Mill dated 14 November 2025, to replace carpet in the lounge, which the quotation states was “fire damage”. I note the quotation makes no reference to urine staining or pet damage.
Carpet Mill then provided a “Pro Forma” dated 21 November 2024 for carpet installation, again referring only to fire-damaged carpet. The amount on the document is $1,360.86. I note I have not received an invoice or evidence of payment for the carpet replacement.
I return again to the ChemDry invoice from 20 November 2024, from the carpet cleaning considered above. ChemDry say: 2 large (one very large) Urine stains in Loung, large Urine stain in front Bedroom and other smaller ones. Blood stains in same bedroom, unable to be removed. Cleaned Lounge, 3 Bedrooms and Hallway with Natural 6. Sanitised Urine stains with BIO-SAN II anti-microbial disinfectant. Urine stains have improved a lot. Left DI on two in Lounge No smell so did not treat with PURT.
I interpret that statement to be saying that the blood stain in the bedroom (not lounge) could not be removed, given that it relates to a whole sentence. The statement does suggest there was some residual urine staining, given the later statement in the next paragraph that “Urine stains have improved a lot”. So this statement supports some residual urine staining but that it was much improved. But it is also relevant to note that the contractor advised there was no residual smell, so the additional treatment with ‘PURT’ was not needed.
I have considered the photographs that have been provided, and I cannot see any photographs which plainly show that the carpet needed to be replaced because urine stains. Noting again that odour according to the contractor was not an issue.
I note that the landlord considered that Mr King had misinterpreted the ChemDry invoice. It would have been open to the landlord to obtain a further statement from ChemDry or have them attend the hearing to clarify the situation, but no further evidence has been presented.
There is also the quote and proforma from Carpet Mill which makes no mention of the carpets needing to be replaced due to pet effects.
I must conclude that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the carpet in the lounge needed to be replaced from any actions of the tenant, so this claim has not been established. Garage door repair
The landlord states the garage door was dented during the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation for the repair, to the sum of $386.50 with reference to the invoice from Dominator garage doors. I note that included the supply of a remote control unit to the sum of $117.39. Analysis
The landlord has produced a photograph showing dents to a sectional garage door. I accept that occurred during the tenancy, it was not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for that damage. I find the tenant must be liable for the full cost of the repair. This claim is ordered in full (including the garage door remote replacement). Replace the downpipe connection
I accept that a downpipe has been damaged during the tenancy. The damage would not be fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so must be liable for the repair cost.
The materials claimed are $8.91. That is ordered as is $30 toward the landlord’s time and mileage. The tenant is therefore liable for $38.91 to repair the downpipe. Garage door repair (person door)
The landlord states that the garage door was damaged, he considers from slamming, and that weather entered the garage.
I note a text message from the tenant dated 14 February 2023, where the tenant advised the landlord, in an update from Cyclone Gabrielle damage, that: It’s carnage at this end...waves are literally in carpark behind me and garage has surface flooding.
The tenant also referred to the garage flooding in her written submission: The slope of the floor in the garage meant that it flooded along the back wall, under the tilt door and under the small side door, if persistent rain occurred. The timber at the bottom of the small door corroded over years to a point where the water guard screws could not hold anymore. I bogged and recrewed it back on many times over the years.
I find the evidence supports a conclusion that the door was likely damaged from water ingress, which the tenant was not responsible for. The damage was not careless or intentional damage. Front door repair
The landlord states that the front door was damaged during the tenancy from being slammed. The landlord also states that the front door was forced open with a lever and was damaged from dog scratching. Analysis
I accept that this damage occurred during the tenancy; the question then becomes whether it was fair wear and tear. I accept that the door had extensive scratches from what would likely be a dog, that is supported in the photographs, but I have ordered compensation for dog damage above.
Otherwise, I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to prove the door damage was not the result of fair wear and tear over the course of a 13-year tenancy. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that the tenant misused the door to such a degree I could accept the damage was careless or intentional damage. Such a conclusion cannot be reached from the photographs alone. Power point replacement
The landlord has provided an invoice from J.A. Russell Ltd for 3 double socket costing $58.88 (for three units). Analysis
While I accept the landlord purchased three power points, there is insufficient evidence to relate those to damage caused by the tenant. Replacing power points could be a maintenance requirement; it is the landlord who must establish that it was not maintenance, and the landlord has not done that. Wall holes in hallway from heater that was removed.
The landlord seeks compensation for repairing holes in the hallway wall from where the tenant had removed a heater.
In an email from 7 October 2024, the tenant confirmed that she did install a wall heater, and that she did not repair the holes. Analysis
The holes are established in the photographs presented, and not disputed by the tenant.
The holes should have been addressed by the tenant when the heater was removed. I consider it fair that some compensation be provided to the landlord for this. I order compensation of $20.00. The repair involved filling two screw holes. Given I consider the premises would have required repainting at the end of the tenancy, I can see no basis for ordering compensation toward the painting cost overall.
The landlord is ordered $20.00 to compensate for his time with filling and sanding the holes. Sink plugs (Kitchen and bathroom)
The landlord states that the “sink waste plug” was missing and replaced, which I presume meant the bathroom plug. The landlord also stated that the kitchen plug was damaged. Analysis
The kitchen sink plug was returned to the landlord, there is no basis to order compensation for it. Certainly it has dents and dings, but I am not of the view it was carelessly or intentionally damaged.
I accept the bathroom plug was not returned, I order $4.00 for that replacement. I do not order compensation for the landlords time, it is an item that could be purchased when the landlord attended Mitre 10 or the plumbing store, where time has been compensated already. Replacing tile grout (leak in toilet pipe) tenant did not advise there was a problem with the grout
The landlord states that water was leaking from the toilet flush pipe, which he states was not reported, and caused damage to the tile grout. The landlord refers to the ‘ProGroup report. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the regrouting invoice from The ProGroup, to the sum of $1,184.50.
In her written submission, the tenant states: I tried to explain that the plumber next door had come over and checked it out, and concluded it was just old parts. The toilet cistern was corroding, rough and discoloured on the outside anyway, showing the true age of the toilet anyway. Analysis
The landlord has provided an email from Kevin Higginson, from ‘The ProGroup’ dated 4 July 2025. Mr Higginson states that: The ground was cracked and ‘soft’ and an ice cream container was in place under the pipe from the cistern. There was mould on the tiles and in the grout underneath the container and the water damage spread out approximately 1 square metre from the leak source. It was necessary to re-grout the entire floor as I am unable to warranty a partial repair of the floor. I will never offer to use cement grout in bathrooms and wet areas as Epoxy grout is superior in its water resistance and the cost difference is materials only, not the labour which is essentially the same. In this case 2kg of cement grout = $16 versus 2kg of epoxy grout – $63. With regards to Silicon replacement, as soon as you remove old grout, the bond with the old silicon is broken so laying new grout up to old silicon will create a leak point therefore the old silicon is completely removed. New grout is laid and new silicon can then be installed over the top of the new grout.
The landlord has provided the inspection report from 4 November 2023, and what is noteworthy, is that the inspection report from the bathroom does not identify any problems at all with the tiles. It reports that the bathroom needs repainting, and a new light, and also that the window requires silicon, but no mention of any defects with the grout. To that extent, I cannot see why the tenant should be held to a higher standard than the property manager around an expectation to be aware of cracks in the grout.
Similarly there is evidence that the landlord needed to go into the bathroom to undertake work. For example, there is an email on file from the landlord to the tenant from 4 December 2023, in which the landlord stated he needed to get into the bathroom to “do the bathroom window, which will take some time and a couple of trips”. If the leak onto the floor was of significance, it is not clear why it was not noted during that work.
Furthermore, I note that there was a known issue with the toilet. The inspection report from 9 September 2017 records that the toilet cistern required replacement, and that same record is noted six years later on the inspection report from 4 November 2023, which also records that the toilet cistern needed to be replaced. My impression is that the cistern was identified years before the end of the tenancy as needing replacement, which would be the landlord’s obligation.
The landlord has not proven that this work is anything more than a maintenance need in the context of being aware that the cistern required replacement. Further, the landlord has not proven that the tenant would have been aware of the need for repair, beyond the level of knowledge that the landlord already had about the state of the toilet. Broken lamp holder
The landlord has provided an invoice from J.A. Russell Ltd for a replacement lamp holder cord grip, costing $13.46.
As I understand it, the landlord’s position is that the tenant damaged the lamp holder removing a light shade. While I have not received evidence on this from an electrician or other independent person, I will accept the landlord’s evidence and find this claim is established. I order the replacement cost and an hour of the landlord’s time, therefore order $63.46. Hole in kitchen wall
The landlord states that the tenant had removed an area of plaster board, he presumes that was done in an effort to find where rodents were coming from. The tenant placed another panel over the hole that was left from opening the wall. Analysis
The tenant confirmed that she has opened this hole, that was in an effort to find the source of the rodents, and it related to the issue with the dishwasher. I consider this is a maintenance issue for the landlord, I do not consider the damage was caused by the tenant carelessly or intentionally. The tenant had what I accept would be a legitimate reason for opening the wall, which was in the context of the leaking pipe from the rodents. Laundry window
The landlord states that the laundry window latch was pulled out of the window frame, making it unlockable. The landlord states that the window sill was water-damaged. Analysis
On the evidence available, I am not persuaded that what has been claimed with the laundry window is anything other than maintenance or fair wear and tear. Door and architrave repair
Again, the landlord has claimed for repair costs to doors and architraves; the landlord considers the damage is from slamming or misuse. Analysis
For the reasons discussed above, this claim has not been proven to be damage caused beyond fair wear and tear in a 13 year tenancy.
I note the tenants email of 7 October 2025, in which she disputes slamming doors. The tenant states that on occasion doors would be blown shut from wind, but she disputes causing the damage, noting this was not raised over the years of the tenancy.
It is relevant to note that when Mr Hall inspected the premises on 4 June 2024, he described an assessment of all doors inside the house as being in “excellent” condition. That would not support excessive damage to the doors as is now claimed. Scraping resin from the laundry tub
The landlord states that the laundry tub was blocked with a cementous resin, that needed to be physically scraped out. Analysis
The landlord states that there was a resinous product in the laundry tub that needed scraping out. I have no reason to doubt that, and order compensation for 30 minutes work, applying the rate I have above, order $15.00. Smoke alarm replacement
The landlord states that smoke alarms were missing from the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord has produced an invoice from J.A. Russell for the purchase of three smoke alarms, at a cost of $29.00 each.
The evidence from Mr Halls inspection report, is that three smoke alarms were missing, the photographs show the alarm bases on the ceiling, but not the alarm.
I have no reason not to accept that these alarms were present at the start of the tenancy. They were not returned; they should have been.
This claim is established. The replacement of the alarms is ordered, with an hour of the landlord’s time. The total order is $117.00. Claim 6 – Rubbish removal
The landlord’s position is that rubbish was left on the premises at the end of the tenancy, and costs have been claimed for the removal of that rubbish, in particular the barbecue and refrigerator. The landlord claims the removal of green waste, claiming 6 hours for that. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove all rubbish. I accept the tenant did not achieve that. I accept there was a barbecue and a fridge left on the premises. The landlord has claimed one hour to remove those. That is established.
There was a small amount of green waste left on the premises shown in the photographs, but I do not accept it would be six hours of work to remove. I will allow 1 further hour for that removal.
I therefore order the tenant to pay the landlord $60.00 for the rubbish removal. Claim 7- Amended exemplary damages
At the hearing on 29 October 2025, the landlord requested that exemplary damages be ordered for: a. Failure to notify change of address b. Smoke alarm breaches c. Failure to reinstate premises following minor change
At the hearing, Mr Tranter noted that this application was being filed outside of the required timeframe, but he requested that the Tribunal accept this claim out of time. Analysis
The provisions relating to exemplary damage awards are found in section 109 of the RTA. This provision includes a timeframe under which applications for exemplary damages must be made, that is subsection 2. That requires, any application for exemplary damages to be lodged within 12 months of the termination of the tenancy if the claim relates to bond breaches (not relevant here), otherwise: 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
Accordingly, the 12 months run from the time of the breach, not the termination of the tenancy, although failure to reinstate premises at the end of the tenancy may coincide with the termination date.
There is no provision in section 109, which would allow the Tribunal to accept an out-of-time application.
But if I were wrong in that, I am not persuaded that the landlord could not have advanced these claims earlier. They could have been advanced prior to the earlier hearing with the Tribunal. There is also a fundamental natural justice issue that arises because these claims have not been served on the tenant, as they were advanced at the hearing on 29 October 2025.
But the primary problem faced by the landlord is that there is no ability to accept a late filing of these exemplary damages claims, so the applications are dismissed. Claim 7 – Lost rent
The landlord seeks 5 weeks of rent. The landlord states that he had allowed 3 weeks to get the premises ready to re-rent, but that it took 8 weeks. Therefore, the landlord seeks compensation for the additional 5 weeks. Analysis
I accept there was some work from tenant breaches accepted above, that required time at the end of the tenancy, but that was modest in comparison with the wider work needed to get this tenancy up to a standard to have it re-rented. The landlord has not convinced me that any of the breaches on the part of the tenant would have extended the period to have the premises re-let, so as to find the tenant liable to compensate the landlord for that.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore I award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083488 — Property damage at 106 Te Awa Avenue, Te Awa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083488 — Property damage at 106 Te Awa Avenue, Te Awa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CORRECT TENANTS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CORRECT TENANTS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.