What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114469 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 5114469?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $828.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $678.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,827.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $946.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,992.85 awarded to landlord; Reinstall Fireplace Flue: $378.35 awarded to landlord; Unblock Toilet – Plumbing: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Recycling Bin: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $383.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114469?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11583725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114469 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 5114469?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $828.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $678.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,827.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $946.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,992.85 awarded to landlord; Reinstall Fireplace Flue: $378.35 awarded to landlord; Unblock Toilet – Plumbing: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Recycling Bin: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $383.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114469?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11583725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114469 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5114469 — net $6,764.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7.1.2025	$3,992.85	Rent arrears to 7.1.2025
Window repairs	$1,827.56	Window repairs
Repairs to repair and secure front entrance door	$946.83	Repairs to repair and secure front entrance door
Lock/key replacement: multiple keys	$678.77	Lock/key replacement: multiple keys
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Lawns and Garden work	$828.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: reinstall fireplace flue	$378.35	Repairs: reinstall fireplace flue
Replace lightbulbs, wardrobe rail	$31.66	Replace lightbulbs, wardrobe rail
Rubbish removal: needles removal and all disposal fees	$383.68	Rubbish removal: needles removal and all disposal fees
Replace recycling bin	$20.00	Replace recycling bin
Repairs: unblock toilet – plumbing	$250.00	Repairs: unblock toilet – plumbing
Net award	$6,764.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,764.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Trina Walsh must pay [The landlord/s] $6,764.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], the property manager representing the landlord, and [The owner], the owner, both attended the hearing in person. The tenant, Ms Walsh, did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord made an oral application for refund of the bond, which was accepted to be considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 7 January 2025, which is $3,992.85.

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. Rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a copy of an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 6 January 2025, indicating the tenant had abandoned the property by then, though she apparently confirmed the landlord could repossess the property by text. The Outgoing Inspection Report set out the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, with photographs of this. The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report, other than a written checklist at the start of the tenancy, which went with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said there was rubbish left at the property, which included a number of used syringes and needles. Because of safety concerns, the landlord said they had to arrange for appropriate disposal of the needles by a qualified provider of this service locally.
The landlord provided photographs of several needles around the property and of a large amount of rubbish left, especially in the garage area. The landlord claimed $980.33 for removing and disposing of the needles properly, and for the service provider also doing outwork for methamphetamine testing at the property. The landlord said during the hearing that the results of the methamphetamine testing showed negligible levels of methamphetamine above the oven in the kitchen, but no report was provided. The invoice for $980.33 includes costs for disposal, attending the site, collecting used needles and for consumables required for this purpose, coming to $253.34 exclusive of GST and $291.34 inclusive of GST. I award the landlord $291.34 for collecting and disposal of the needles, as part of rubbish removal and disposal. I do not allow the landlord’s costs claimed for methamphetamine swabbing, outwork and testing, as there was insufficient evidence provided to confirm that there was unlawful use of the property, despite the used needles found, as there was no evidence provided to confirm any methamphetamine at the property, by way of a testing report or otherwise, for example, and no Ingoing Inspection Report was provided to show the property was free of any methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. Thus, the landlord could not show that the cost of methamphetamine sampling and outwork for testing was linked to any unlawful use of the premises.
The landlord also claimed a general rubbish disposal fee of $92.34, which I find reasonable given the amount of rubbish left in the garage.
As such, I allow the landlord a total of $291.34 plus $92.34 for rubbish disposal fees, for a total of $383.68. Replace keys
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided photographs of the large number of keys that had been provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, which had been signed off by the tenant. The landlord said these keys had to be replaced at a cost of $678.77, and provided an invoice confirming this, which I accept as reasonable given the large number of keys involved. I therefore award the landlord $678.77 to replace the keys not returned by the tenant. I note this claim is separate from the front door entrance repair and relocking, which is dealt with below separately. Recycling bin
The landlord said they had to replace a recycling bin which was missing at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $20.00. The landlord provided proof that the recycling bin was provided at the start of the tenancy, in a checklist signed off by the tenant. I therefore award the landlord $20.00 to replace the recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. Missing lightbulbs and wardrobe rail
The landlord said they had to replace 5 missing light bulbs and a wardrobe rail that had been removed from a bedroom fixed wardrobe. A photograph was provided showing the missing wardrobe rail and I accept the 5 lightbulbs were also likely missing. The landlord provided a receipt showing the total cost to replace 5 lightbulbs and the wardrobe rail, which was $31.66. Therefore, I award the landlord $31.66 to replace the missing lightbulbs and wardrobe rail. Plumbing
The landlord said the main toilet was blocked with human waste and had to be unblocked by a plumber. The landlord provided an invoice for $436.00 for this. The landlord said the plumber discovered part of a plastic syringe in the toilet, with the human waste, and so used disposable PPE and added this to the invoice. The invoice showed the plumber charged for 3 hours @ $92.00/hour exclusive of GST, as well as for a service call out rate and travel in the amount of $110.00, and consumables and PPE costs. I find this cost to be excessive to unblock a toilet, as there is a service call out fee as well as labour time to unblock the toilet. I find 2 hours of labour @ $100.00/hour, GST inclusive, for a sub-total of $200.00, plus the PPE cost of $25.00 and the job consumables cost of $25.00, for a total cost of $250.00 GST inclusive, to be reasonable to unblock the toilet in this situation. Therefore, I award the landlord $250.00 to unblock the toilet. Gardening
The landlord claimed the lawns were overgrown and weeding had not been done by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report of the lawn and garden’s condition at the end of the tenancy. From these photographs and discussion at the hearing, I accept the front lawns were not overgrown but were in reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. However, I also accept that the lawns and gardens at the back and sides of the property were overgrown and that there was likely weed control work that had to be completed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord estimated the size of the back lawn to be around 250-300 square metres.
The landlord claimed $2,436.85 for the cost of mowing the lawns and weeding. This apparently included 2 full workdays of 2 workers (32 hours in total) @ $65.00/hour exclusive of GST. This apparently included the front lawns, which I do not find necessarily required mowing or weeding from the photographs. I find this amount to be excessive for the gardening work likely required as shown in the photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, which would have included mowing the lawns at the back and sides of the property and weeding. I allow a more reasonable hourly rate of $45.00/hour for the gardening and allow 16 hours of work in total @ $45.00 for a sub-total of $720.00 plus GST, which comes to $828.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken windows a. The landlord said two ranch sliders’ windows and 2 single pane windows were broken and had to be reglazed. The landlord pointed out photographs showing these broken windows and provided an invoice for $1,827.56 showing the cost of reglazing the windows in the 2 ranch sliders and the 2 single pane windows. I accept this was likely careless damage on the part of the tenant, from the photographs. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. I find the landlord’s claim for $1,827.56 to be reasonable, given the large windows in the two ranch sliders that had to be reglazed, as well as the two single pane windows that had to be reglazed. As the windows were reglazed and the window structures were not replaced, I do not consider depreciation. Front entrance door b. The landlord said the front entrance door lock was broken and somebody had kicked in the outside of this door. They said they found the front entrance door boarded up from the inside and provided a photograph of this. I accept this was likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant from the evidence. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. c. The landlord claimed $976.11 to repair the door and secure the lock, which I find to be a reasonable cost for this and provided an invoice in this amount to do so. d. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. e. The landlord said the door was only around 18 months old, as they had replaced the front door that had been there in earlier tenancies as it had been glass and kept getting broken. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of a front entrance door in a rental property is around 50 years. As such, I deduct the $976.11 cost I find reasonable to replace the front entrance door by 3% for depreciation to an award of $946.83. Fireplace flue f. The landlord said the heavy wood burner fireplace had been moved off its hearth and moved into the middle of the lounge floor at the end of the tenancy. The fireplace flue was missing, later found. I accept this was likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant. g. The landlord managed to get the fireplace shifted back onto the hearth eventually and claimed the cost of having to reinstall the fireplace flue, which was $378.35, which I find is reasonable for this reinstallation. I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part, and so the tenant is liable for the full cost of repair. The landlord provided an invoice in this amount for this. As this was a repair rather than a replacement, I do not need to consider depreciation. Missing gates h. The landlord claimed that 2 gates at the 2 driveway entrances to the property were missing. The landlord claimed a total of $801.82 to replace the gates, which is what they had paid the tenant to have them installed recently, when the tenant requested they be put in. However, the landlord’s Outgoing Inspection Report photographs show the 2 gates as present at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said they noticed several days after the tenancy ended that both gates were missing, with various tradespeople coming and going over this period. I find there is insufficient evidence, given this, to show that the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and so dismiss this claim. i. The damage, as indicated above, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5114469 — net $6,764.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7.1.2025	$3,992.85	Rent arrears to 7.1.2025
Window repairs	$1,827.56	Window repairs
Repairs to repair and secure front entrance door	$946.83	Repairs to repair and secure front entrance door
Lock/key replacement: multiple keys	$678.77	Lock/key replacement: multiple keys
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Lawns and Garden work	$828.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: reinstall fireplace flue	$378.35	Repairs: reinstall fireplace flue
Replace lightbulbs, wardrobe rail	$31.66	Replace lightbulbs, wardrobe rail
Rubbish removal: needles removal and all disposal fees	$383.68	Rubbish removal: needles removal and all disposal fees
Replace recycling bin	$20.00	Replace recycling bin
Repairs: unblock toilet – plumbing	$250.00	Repairs: unblock toilet – plumbing
Net award	$6,764.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,764.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Trina Walsh must pay [The landlord/s] $6,764.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], the property manager representing the landlord, and [The owner], the owner, both attended the hearing in person. The tenant, Ms Walsh, did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord made an oral application for refund of the bond, which was accepted to be considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 7 January 2025, which is $3,992.85.

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. Rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a copy of an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 6 January 2025, indicating the tenant had abandoned the property by then, though she apparently confirmed the landlord could repossess the property by text. The Outgoing Inspection Report set out the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, with photographs of this. The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report, other than a written checklist at the start of the tenancy, which went with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said there was rubbish left at the property, which included a number of used syringes and needles. Because of safety concerns, the landlord said they had to arrange for appropriate disposal of the needles by a qualified provider of this service locally.
The landlord provided photographs of several needles around the property and of a large amount of rubbish left, especially in the garage area. The landlord claimed $980.33 for removing and disposing of the needles properly, and for the service provider also doing outwork for methamphetamine testing at the property. The landlord said during the hearing that the results of the methamphetamine testing showed negligible levels of methamphetamine above the oven in the kitchen, but no report was provided. The invoice for $980.33 includes costs for disposal, attending the site, collecting used needles and for consumables required for this purpose, coming to $253.34 exclusive of GST and $291.34 inclusive of GST. I award the landlord $291.34 for collecting and disposal of the needles, as part of rubbish removal and disposal. I do not allow the landlord’s costs claimed for methamphetamine swabbing, outwork and testing, as there was insufficient evidence provided to confirm that there was unlawful use of the property, despite the used needles found, as there was no evidence provided to confirm any methamphetamine at the property, by way of a testing report or otherwise, for example, and no Ingoing Inspection Report was provided to show the property was free of any methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. Thus, the landlord could not show that the cost of methamphetamine sampling and outwork for testing was linked to any unlawful use of the premises.
The landlord also claimed a general rubbish disposal fee of $92.34, which I find reasonable given the amount of rubbish left in the garage.
As such, I allow the landlord a total of $291.34 plus $92.34 for rubbish disposal fees, for a total of $383.68. Replace keys
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided photographs of the large number of keys that had been provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, which had been signed off by the tenant. The landlord said these keys had to be replaced at a cost of $678.77, and provided an invoice confirming this, which I accept as reasonable given the large number of keys involved. I therefore award the landlord $678.77 to replace the keys not returned by the tenant. I note this claim is separate from the front door entrance repair and relocking, which is dealt with below separately. Recycling bin
The landlord said they had to replace a recycling bin which was missing at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $20.00. The landlord provided proof that the recycling bin was provided at the start of the tenancy, in a checklist signed off by the tenant. I therefore award the landlord $20.00 to replace the recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. Missing lightbulbs and wardrobe rail
The landlord said they had to replace 5 missing light bulbs and a wardrobe rail that had been removed from a bedroom fixed wardrobe. A photograph was provided showing the missing wardrobe rail and I accept the 5 lightbulbs were also likely missing. The landlord provided a receipt showing the total cost to replace 5 lightbulbs and the wardrobe rail, which was $31.66. Therefore, I award the landlord $31.66 to replace the missing lightbulbs and wardrobe rail. Plumbing
The landlord said the main toilet was blocked with human waste and had to be unblocked by a plumber. The landlord provided an invoice for $436.00 for this. The landlord said the plumber discovered part of a plastic syringe in the toilet, with the human waste, and so used disposable PPE and added this to the invoice. The invoice showed the plumber charged for 3 hours @ $92.00/hour exclusive of GST, as well as for a service call out rate and travel in the amount of $110.00, and consumables and PPE costs. I find this cost to be excessive to unblock a toilet, as there is a service call out fee as well as labour time to unblock the toilet. I find 2 hours of labour @ $100.00/hour, GST inclusive, for a sub-total of $200.00, plus the PPE cost of $25.00 and the job consumables cost of $25.00, for a total cost of $250.00 GST inclusive, to be reasonable to unblock the toilet in this situation. Therefore, I award the landlord $250.00 to unblock the toilet. Gardening
The landlord claimed the lawns were overgrown and weeding had not been done by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report of the lawn and garden’s condition at the end of the tenancy. From these photographs and discussion at the hearing, I accept the front lawns were not overgrown but were in reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. However, I also accept that the lawns and gardens at the back and sides of the property were overgrown and that there was likely weed control work that had to be completed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord estimated the size of the back lawn to be around 250-300 square metres.
The landlord claimed $2,436.85 for the cost of mowing the lawns and weeding. This apparently included 2 full workdays of 2 workers (32 hours in total) @ $65.00/hour exclusive of GST. This apparently included the front lawns, which I do not find necessarily required mowing or weeding from the photographs. I find this amount to be excessive for the gardening work likely required as shown in the photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, which would have included mowing the lawns at the back and sides of the property and weeding. I allow a more reasonable hourly rate of $45.00/hour for the gardening and allow 16 hours of work in total @ $45.00 for a sub-total of $720.00 plus GST, which comes to $828.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken windows a. The landlord said two ranch sliders’ windows and 2 single pane windows were broken and had to be reglazed. The landlord pointed out photographs showing these broken windows and provided an invoice for $1,827.56 showing the cost of reglazing the windows in the 2 ranch sliders and the 2 single pane windows. I accept this was likely careless damage on the part of the tenant, from the photographs. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. I find the landlord’s claim for $1,827.56 to be reasonable, given the large windows in the two ranch sliders that had to be reglazed, as well as the two single pane windows that had to be reglazed. As the windows were reglazed and the window structures were not replaced, I do not consider depreciation. Front entrance door b. The landlord said the front entrance door lock was broken and somebody had kicked in the outside of this door. They said they found the front entrance door boarded up from the inside and provided a photograph of this. I accept this was likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant from the evidence. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. c. The landlord claimed $976.11 to repair the door and secure the lock, which I find to be a reasonable cost for this and provided an invoice in this amount to do so. d. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. e. The landlord said the door was only around 18 months old, as they had replaced the front door that had been there in earlier tenancies as it had been glass and kept getting broken. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of a front entrance door in a rental property is around 50 years. As such, I deduct the $976.11 cost I find reasonable to replace the front entrance door by 3% for depreciation to an award of $946.83. Fireplace flue f. The landlord said the heavy wood burner fireplace had been moved off its hearth and moved into the middle of the lounge floor at the end of the tenancy. The fireplace flue was missing, later found. I accept this was likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant. g. The landlord managed to get the fireplace shifted back onto the hearth eventually and claimed the cost of having to reinstall the fireplace flue, which was $378.35, which I find is reasonable for this reinstallation. I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part, and so the tenant is liable for the full cost of repair. The landlord provided an invoice in this amount for this. As this was a repair rather than a replacement, I do not need to consider depreciation. Missing gates h. The landlord claimed that 2 gates at the 2 driveway entrances to the property were missing. The landlord claimed a total of $801.82 to replace the gates, which is what they had paid the tenant to have them installed recently, when the tenant requested they be put in. However, the landlord’s Outgoing Inspection Report photographs show the 2 gates as present at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said they noticed several days after the tenancy ended that both gates were missing, with various tradespeople coming and going over this period. I find there is insufficient evidence, given this, to show that the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and so dismiss this claim. i. The damage, as indicated above, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114469 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114469 — Rent arrears

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