What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5094768 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $4,715.18.

How much money was awarded in case 5094768?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $28.30 awarded to landlord; Electrical Callout: $206.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $19.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,768.58 awarded to landlord; Glass: $187.27 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Roller Door: $181.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blinds: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shower Curtain: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $188.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5094768?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5094768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11573916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5094768 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $4,715.18.

How much money was awarded in case 5094768?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $28.30 awarded to landlord; Electrical Callout: $206.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $19.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,768.58 awarded to landlord; Glass: $187.27 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Roller Door: $181.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blinds: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shower Curtain: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $188.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5094768?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5094768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11573916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Balmoral Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5094768 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5094768 — net $4,715.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,768.58	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal: tip fees	$188.00	Rubbish removal: tip fees
Rubbish removal: labour	$360.00	Rubbish removal: labour
Cleaning	$305.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$368.85	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: painting	$1,125.00	Repairs: painting
Cleaning products	$28.30	Cleaning products
Repairs: plastering	$185.00	Repairs: plastering
Repairs: glass	$187.27	Repairs: glass
Replace furnishings: shower curtain	$15.00	Replace furnishings: shower curtain
Replace furnishings: blinds	$250.00	Replace furnishings: blinds
Lawns and Garden work: grass seed	$19.98	Lawns and Garden work: grass seed
Replace furnishings: oven	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: oven
Electrical callout	$206.43	Electrical callout
Repairs: roller door	$181.47	by the tenant or someone who was there with her consent. She is ordered to pay $181.47 for the repair to the roller door.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,715.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,715.18

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5094768 — net $4,715.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,768.58	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal: tip fees	$188.00	Rubbish removal: tip fees
Rubbish removal: labour	$360.00	Rubbish removal: labour
Cleaning	$305.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$368.85	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: painting	$1,125.00	Repairs: painting
Cleaning products	$28.30	Cleaning products
Repairs: plastering	$185.00	Repairs: plastering
Repairs: glass	$187.27	Repairs: glass
Replace furnishings: shower curtain	$15.00	Replace furnishings: shower curtain
Replace furnishings: blinds	$250.00	Replace furnishings: blinds
Lawns and Garden work: grass seed	$19.98	Lawns and Garden work: grass seed
Replace furnishings: oven	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: oven
Electrical callout	$206.43	Electrical callout
Repairs: roller door	$181.47	by the tenant or someone who was there with her consent. She is ordered to pay $181.47 for the repair to the roller door.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,715.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,715.18

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Ms Gough and Ms Llardelli, and the tenant by Ms Fell-Smith. The tenant and her advocate attended by phone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The total claimed is $10,340.41.
The onus of proof is on the landlord, who must prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The tenancy commenced on 16 May 2024 and was to have been for a 12- month fixed term. The tenancy ended on 10 December 2024 after notice was given on 6 December 2024 that the tenant was withdrawing from the tenancy under section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant accepts that she owes the rent, but Ms Fell-Smith said that the tenant had thought that she had to pay fortnightly in advance, and this was what had led to her falling behind on rent. The landlord should have told her.
The rent summary shows that the tenant made only one payment of two weeks in advance ($1,000). That was on 17 April 2024. The tenancy commenced on 16 May 2024. She made no further payments of $1,000. She was in credit by one week for most of the first 2½ months, and from 26 September onwards remained in arrears.
The argument raised on the tenant’s behalf does not make sense, given she made only one payment of two weeks, as often required before a tenancy starts.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on 10 December. The landlord has proved the rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,768.58 and that amount is ordered.

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, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepts that she did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, but disputes the amounts claimed. She had left the property at short notice under section 56B of the Act, 1 and had wanted to come back to clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an email dated 17 December 2024 from the tenant asking to come back and repair the door come back to do some repairs and remove rubbish. The owner was unhappy with the state of the property and did not want her to come back after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord submitted an invoice from the owner for his own time for painting, rubbish removal, cleaning and general clean-up totalling $2,600 being 40 hours of work at $65.00 per hour. There was also an invoice from Prestige Cleaning $305 claimed for cleaning, which the tenant agreed to pay. That amount is ordered.
There was also a receipt from Mitre 10 which included $28.30 for cleaning products including sugar soap. The tenant agreed to pay this.
The landlord claimed tip fees of $188 for two trips to the dump on 16 December 2024. Receipts showed that the total amount of waste was 500kg.
The tenant disputed that the waste would have been that much and said that two of the bins contained recycling.
The outside photos produced by the landlord show a large corner unit from a lounge suite; outside bins with cardboard drink cups, soft plastics and biscuit wrappers and food, a toy ukelele; several bags of rubbish; a pile of green waste covered in a number of banana boxes; a wooden bedhead and slats leaning against the fence; a discarded heater/air conditioner, a high chair, and other plastic furniture and a slide; and a metal drum filled with rubbish. The tenant said that one of the bins was for general waste.
Inside the house and garage there was a pile of brown paper bags, some food items in the pantry, more banana boxes, a rug and some plastic inflatables, a spare wheel, parts of a vacuum cleaner, some drying racks, and some more debris in a cupboard.
I am satisfied that there was a considerable amount of rubbish left, and the amount of 500kg seems reasonable. At the end of the tenancy, all rubbish must be removed. That includes recycling or other rubbish that could be placed at the kerbside. At a minimum, the tenant should have put collectable rubbish at the kerbside herself.
Section 56B enables a tenant to terminate a tenancy at short notice, without the usual liability for rent for a further 28 days or until the end of a fixed term 1 Section 56B enables a tenant who is a victim of family violence to withdraw from a tenancy on 2 days’ notice without being liable for rent for the usual notice period of 28 days or for the remainder of a fixed term tenancy. tenancy. The section does not remove the other obligations of a tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy under section 40(1)(c) and leave the premises leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish under section 40(1)(e). This needs to be done on termination, not afterwards. The amount of $188 for tip fees is ordered.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $2,600 for 40 hours for at $65 per hour for painting, clearing rubbish, cleaning and general clean-up. The tenant said that the landlord is in the business of residential rentals and needs to absorb some maintenance costs associated with ensuring their property is ready for the next tenant. It is not the Tenant’s fault that the landlord chooses to live out of the area of the rental so a full 40-hour week @$65 per hour which includes travel time and probably fuel costs, should not fully be the tenant’s responsibility.
The tenant was willing to pay 10 hours for some painting and rubbish removal.
The tenant’s advocate also said that she understood that the Tribunal usually ordered $30 an hour for an owner’s time.
The landlords said that there is no reference to travel or fuel costs in the invoice.
The amounts ordered where an owner has undertaken cleaning and repairs themselves varies. Cleaning may be ordered at $30 an hour, whereas work that requires a tradesman or rubbish removal may attract a higher fee.
Rubbish removal of large items is often contracted out. The time taken for rubbish removal is often more than expected. I have decided that 8 hours at $45.00 an hour is reasonable. That makes a total of $360. The matter of the painting is considered below.
The tenant did not return the keys because she had lost them. They had fallen down a drain. She did not agree that the keys needed to be replaced.
The owner wanted to change the locks because, having seen the property, they did not feel happy with the possibility that someone had a key.
The tenant is required to return the keys. If keys are not returned, the owner is entitled to change the locks. It is not an unreasonable expense. The tenant is ordered to pay $386.85 for the lock change.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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 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. Painting and plastering
The landlord’s claim for painting and plastering was as follows: a. The owner’s invoice for $2,600 for 40 hours of his time for painting and rubbish removal. As noted above, an amount of $360 for 8 hours at $45.00 an hour for rubbish removal has been ordered. That leaves a balance of 32 hours. b. A plastering invoice for $185.00 from Growing Up Investments Ltd, which the tenant agrees to pay. c. Some products including sugar soap, totalling 28.30, which the tenant agrees to pay.
At the end of the tenancy there was an area of the wall which the tenant had attempted to plaster as well as large children’s decals and stickers on the walls and ceiling. The landlord provided photographs showing patches of paint removed after the stickers were removed. There was also scribbling on some walls.
The tenant said that only area of the property requiring painting was the patched wall where a heavy piece of gym gear damaged the wall and a small patch behind the living room door.
The tenant said that the decals on the walls shown in the outgoing inspection photos were all able to be removed without damaging the surface underneath – these had been repositioned several times without affecting the wall surface. If damage occurred to the walls during their removal process, the responsibility of this should not lie with her. The tenant referred to photographs of her partner demonstrating the removal of decals, showing that if done right, it will not affect the wall.
The landlord said that the property had been painted before the start of the tenancy.
The landlord should not have to spend time carefully removing stickers and decals. They should have already been removed. If they cannot be removed easily, then the tenant is liable for the damage. The photographs show some children’s scribbling on the hall walls, some coloured marks and a scrape. walls and some coloured marks. There is a plastered patch and scribbling in the lounge, a gouge and some marks in the dining room, decals and coloured marks and scrapes in two bedrooms. These are more than fair wear and tear. There are some marks in other rooms that might fall into that category.
The tenant agreed that she is liable for some damage to the property. She accepted responsibility for some plastering at a cost of $185.00 and the cleaning items including sugar soap, totalling $28.30, as noted above.
The tenant is not liable for further cleaning and “general clean-up”, but I have determined that she must pay compensation for painting. It is reasonable that she pay a further 25 hours at $45.00 for the owner’s time painting five of the rooms. That comes to $1,125.00. That amount is ordered. Glass panel
A glass panel in a door was broken. The tenant disputed the amount claimed of $187.27, saying that this was for toughened glass, but the original glass was not toughened glass. It would not have broken if it was. A child ran into it, and it broke into long shards, rather than shattering. The tenant had obtained a quote for $135.00.
The landlord said that she had asked the glass to be replaced with like for like.
I find the fact the glass had broken does not prove that it was not toughened glass. Even toughened glass can break, depending on the force used. Without independent evidence of the nature of the glass, and whether the way in which it has broken is inconsistent with it being toughened glass, it is difficult to decide whether the glass was different. In any event there is little difference between the quote of $135 and $187.27. I am satisfied that payment of $187.27 is reasonable compensation for a damaged glass panel in a door. Oven
The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $1,000 for a replacement oven because a knife had melted into the bottom of the oven.
The tenant accepts that the oven was not clean. She does not accept responsibility for the knife that was stuck to it. The does not recall a knife ever being inside the oven and has no idea how it appeared. It was not mentioned during inspections and she had not been served with a 14-day notice to remedy it. It was not part of the landlord’s original application.
The landlord said that it was not until the oven was cleaned that it was realised that there was a knife stuck to the bottom and it could not be removed.
The oven was new, having been replaced during the tenancy, in May 2024.
I am satisfied that the tenant had adequate notice of this issue before the hearing. A written response was filed before the hearing.
In the exit photos, there is food in tray in the oven. In another, showing the bottom of the oven, there a pile of burnt-on material and a knife can also be In another photo, a stainless steel knife is embedded in the bottom of the oven. I find it more likely than not that until the oven had been cleaned, either it was not realised the knife was there, or not realised that the knife could not be removed.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The stove was only 6 months old and so I make no deduction for depreciation. The amount of $1,000 is proved. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claimed $855 for carpet cleaning and stain removal.
The tenant disputed that she should have to pay for carpet cleaning the whole house at the end of the tenancy. She accepted responsibility for a stain in the lounge and agreed to pay for cleaning of that where her son had spilled a drink.
The tenant said that she had photos on her phone which show no stains. She said there was purple chalk in the hallway which could have been cleaned with water and a cloth.
The property manager said that she also took photos on her work phone. It was also suggested that the photos provided by the tenant were the landlord’s photos that were then photoshopped.
Tenants do not have to have the carpets cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but if there are obvious marks from accidents such as spilled drinks then cleaning may be required to fulfil the obligation of leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Sometimes if spills have been noticed and attended to at the time, cleaning is not later required.
The tenant accepts responsibility for cleaning and stains in the lounge. I also find that the chalk in the hallway required cleaning. If it had been attended to in the way described by the tenant before she moved out, then perhaps a carpet cleaner would not have been required. It was reasonable for the carpet to be cleaned by the landlord.
There were one or two small marks on the bedroom floors, but the entry and exit photos are difficult to compare because they are not necessarily of the same spots. I find it unlikely that they would have given rise to a claim had the other floors not required cleaning.
The lounge floor is the significant one because the drink had stained the carpet. It is reasonable to clean the carpet first, and then have to use a stain remover if the original clean does not fix the issue.
I have decided that the tenant should contribute $500 to the carpet cleaning and stain removal. Curtain bracket
The landlord claims $4.00 for a curtain bracket that was broken. I consider this is fair wear and tear and make no order. Shower curtain
The landlord seeks $37.98 for a replacement shower curtain and hooks.
The tenant said that she took down the shower curtain that was there because it was mouldy. She did not replace it because She did not use the shower. She feels that the landlord should replace shower curtains between tenancies.
The tenant disputed the landlord’s evidence that the shower curtain was new at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord agreed that they usually replace a shower curtain after a tenancy of more than 12 months old, but this tenancy was only 6 to 7 months.
The entry photos do not show the full shower curtain spread out, but there is a photo of the bottom of the shower curtain, over the bath. The is no evidence of grime. It is not discoloured in any way. The appearance of the shower curtain in the photo is consistent with the landlord’s evidence that the curtain was new at the start of the tenancy. If the tenant did not want to use the shower curtain, she should have left it behind.
That said, the tenant should not have to pay the full replacement cost, because if she had stayed for another 6 months before ending the tenancy, they would have replaced it in any event. The tenant is ordered to contribute $15.00 to the replacement curtain. Kitchen drawers
The landlord sought $341.94 for repair of three kitchen drawers.
The tenant said that they broke through no fault hers. A tradesman was to have come and repaired them.
The landlord said that they were informed about one bracket and it was fixed. They were told that the tenant should not be so hard on the drawers and cupboards.
The tenant said she did not intentionally break the drawers. They got weak and would slip. She told the property manager about this. She said that she would get a contractor. He came and cleared the gutter and said he would come back the next day to fix the drawers but he did not. She said that she did not mistreat the drawers.
The photographs show the fronts have come off three drawers. The landlord said that the drawers were not very old. I appreciate that some modern kitchen fittings are not as strong as older joinery. It is difficult to see from the photographs that there has been any particular damage or force. The tenant denies any rough or inappropriate treatment of the drawers. The landlord has not established that the tenant is responsible for damage to the drawers or that this is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Blind replacement
The landlord sought $1,074.24 for replacement venetian blinds, which had been installed at the start of the tenancy. In fact, the discounted price on the proposal is $772.36.
The tenant questions the cost of three custom-made blinds from Harrisons, rather than from Spotlight. She referred to a photograph of the kitchen blinds which she described as slightly crinkled but she did not consider they were bad enough to replace. They were not as bad as the only ones that were bent at the ends. She acknowledged that her son had bent one of the blinds.
The tenant advocate did not consider that the blinds had been replaced like for like, and the photograph online in the advertisement for rental of the property does not show the blinds.
The landlord explained that the owner has paid for the blinds, and they are scheduled to be replaced. She provided proof of payment, exclusive of GST. The property manager said that the original blinds were also from Harrisons.
The tenant has accepted that her son bent one of the blinds.
I accept that the landlord has paid for replacement blinds.
Looking at the photographs, the lounge blinds were warped in two places, one end of the kitchen blinds had been bent on four or five slats, and there was some warping on the other kitchen blind.
Venetian blinds can be difficult to maintain and some warping or bending is to be expected as part of fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied that two of the blinds were so damaged that they needed to be replaced.
The tenant must contribute $250 towards replacement of the blinds. Flooring
The landlord sought $1000 being the insurance excess for repairs to the floor, totalling $1,247.47. The landlord produced photos showing that the laundry floor and wall has swollen.
A leaking sink and wash tub had been repaired towards the end of the tenancy in November 2024. The landlord produced an email from a plumber confirming that at that time the floor was in good condition at that time. All plumbing was checked and no further leaks were found.
The landlord said that the damage occurred during the month between the last inspection during the tenancy and the exit inspection. A plumber inspected and there is no leak. Therefore they thought there had been a flood or leak from the washing machine or tub during the last month of the tenancy.
In an email from Toni Coutts from Flooring Design Levin, dated 13 January 2025, it was recorded that Wayne had said that it was likely that a flood had happened at some point, whether from a constant leak in the washing machine over time or a leak within the tub. It was very wet underneath.
The tenant’s representative noted that the ingoing inspection described the floor in the laundry as clean and tidy, but not “good condition” unlike the description of the floors in the other rooms.
The tenant denied any flood or leak. She provided a copy of an email chain dated 24 January 2025. She had sent the photos to Tracy Fryer Floor design, and received this reply: Thank you for the photos, from what I can see in the pictures and readying the email from Flooring Design Levin I would suggest that, with the way the vinyl is bubbling the moisture is coming from under the vinyl, not from on top of the vinyl which would be consistent with the plumbing advising there was a leak in the laundry pipes. Even with the leak being repaired (it also may not be repaired, or another leak is present) the subfloor will hold the moisture as long as the vinyl is still on the floor. I have also shown the picture to my colleague, and both agree that with the known leak to have been present it would be a very long reach to assume that any type of floor from your washing machine has caused this damage. I have been in flooring for 25 years so feel that I am somewhat of an ‘expert’ and I have seen many floods and slow leak-damaged floors. I strongly believe that with the known leak this is the most likely cause of the damage.
The onus is on the landlord to prove that the damage was caused by a careless or intentional act by the tenant or someone there with her permission. Without having both the plumber and the flooring specialist available for questioning, it is difficult to determine this issue. It seems unlikely that it would be caused by a single flood. The tenant says that there is no issue with her washing machine leaking. The landlord has not established that the damage is more likely than not caused by an action of the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Electrical callout
The landlord had paid for an electrical callout fee of $206.43 as a result of a power outage. It transpired to be as a result of a faulty toastie pie maker, belonging to the tenant. It was quite new and had only been used a couple of times.
It is no criticism of the tenant, but the landlord should not be responsible for a callout that was caused by the tenant’s appliance, rather than a fault within the house. The tenant must pay for this. The amount of $206.43 is ordered. Lawns
The landlord claimed $19.98 for lawn seed. The tenant had had a pool erected on the lawn which had left a large, brown, damaged patch on the lawn. The tenant disputed having to pay for grass seed, saying that the lawn would have grown back without seed.
I agree that eventually the patch would have greened up, but it is reasonable for the landlord to want to ensure that the lawn grew back in as good a condition as possible. The landlord had not agreed to the pool and had issued a 14-day notice to remove it. I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the grass seed.
Included in the receipts were two amounts for weed weapon. It is not clear whether this was for the lawn or some other area, but there has been no claim in relation to maintaining the lawns or gardens and so I have deducted those amounts. Garage door
The landlord sought compensation for repair of the roller door and provided an invoice from Quin Roofing Limited for $181.47 for refitting the door back on to the guides and replacing the lock.
The tenant denied any knowledge of damage to the door. She said that it could not have happened when she was moving out as the truck could not get close to the garage.
The landlord said that the photographs of the garage door were taken on 11 December, the day after the tenant had moved out.
I find it is unlikely that the damage occurred between 10 December and 11 December. I find it more likely that the damage occurred during the tenancy by the tenant or someone who was there with her consent. She is ordered to pay $181.47 for the repair to the roller door.
Because Team Group Rentals Limited T/As Harcourts Team Group Rentals Limited As Agetn For George Hall Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because of the circumstances that led to the early termination of the tenancy, there is an order for suppression of the name of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5094768 — Property damage at 17 Balmoral Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5094768 — Property damage at 17 Balmoral Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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