What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119734 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 5119734?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,420.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,645.71 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,525.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,106.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201622-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119734 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 5119734?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,420.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,645.71 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,525.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,106.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201622-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5119734 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119734 — net $13,923.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 November 2024	$3,645.71	Rent arrears to 8 November 2024
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$3,106.11	Rubbish removal: and lawns
Repairs: wall repair and painting	$3,525.00	Repairs: wall repair and painting
Repairs: kitchen	$300.00	Repairs: kitchen
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Replace carpet and vinyl	$400.00	Replace carpet and vinyl
Lost rent	$2,420.00	Lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,923.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,923.82

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119734 — net $13,923.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 November 2024	$3,645.71	Rent arrears to 8 November 2024
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$3,106.11	Rubbish removal: and lawns
Repairs: wall repair and painting	$3,525.00	Repairs: wall repair and painting
Repairs: kitchen	$300.00	Repairs: kitchen
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Replace carpet and vinyl	$400.00	Replace carpet and vinyl
Lost rent	$2,420.00	Lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,923.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,923.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Aamiria Sydney must pay [The landlord/s] $13,923.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remainder of the landlord’s claim is dismissed

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. A mandarin interpreter attended at the request of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, loss of rent, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord amended her claim twice after filing her application. The Case Conference Minute issued by Adjudicator G Baker on 31 March 2025 records the landlord’s claim to that date. The landlord then further amended her application 1 to include claims for water rates, further miscellaneous repairs and replacement of carpet and vinyl.
Ms Sydney started tenanting the property under a periodic tenancy on 8 June 2016. She lived in the property with her 9 children. At the start of the tenancy the landlord believed the children were aged from new born to around 12 to 13 years old.
The landlord describes the property as having 5 bedrooms and a study, two living areas and two bathrooms. The property has a self contained flat in the basement. The landlord described it as a large property suitable for the number of occupants that were living there.
In 2020-21 the landlord partly renovated the property and a new periodic tenancy was signed between the parties on 22 January 2021. The tenant and her children remained living in the property while it was renovated.
The tenant fell into arrears and the landlord said she and the tenant mutually agreed that the tenancy would end on 8 November 2024. The landlord believes the tenant finally moved out on around 13-14 November 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records from the start of the tenancy in 2016 which establish the tenant was $7,909.99 in arrears as at 8 November 2024. The landlord said agreed with the tenant that if the bond ($1,800.00) was returned to her she would only claim rent arrears due from 20 December 2022 to the end of the tenancy of $3,645.71. The bond was returned and accordingly an order for this sum is made.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims $2,712.52 in water rates (consumption only) for the period 10 July 2024 until 16 January 2025.
The landlord said the tenant was liable to pay water rates under the tenancy agreement, but she never gave any water rates invoices to the tenant or asked her to pay for water rates during the tenancy, as the tenant’s water use was very moderate. 1 The tenant was given notice by email by the landlord on 1 July 2025 and then again on 3 July 2025
The water use for July 2024 to January 2025 was significant. The landlord had a plumber check for leaks, but no leak was found. She believes the only explanation is that in the final months of the tenancy the tenant, or others in the property, wasted water.
I am not sufficiently persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the high use of water during the period of the water invoice is attributable to the tenant’s use. The tenant moved out in mid-November 2024 at the latest. The landlord did not read the meter when she went to the property on 15 November 2024. The council read the meter on 16 January 2025, around 8-9 weeks later. During that time the landlord’s evidence establishes that a number of contractors were on site carrying out work for the landlord after mid November, but no-one was living the property. The water could have been used, or wasted, by anyone at the property for legitimate reasons or not.
Given the landlord did not charge the tenant for water during the eight and a half years she lived in the tenancy I find she effectively waived her right to claim for water. For these reasons this part of the claim is dismissed.

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, (RTA).
The landlord’s evidence establishes that a significant amount of rubbish was left at the property as well as other items left behind by the tenant. In addition to a having to remove a number of used whiteware appliances, five 9m³ skip bins were filled with rubbish left after the tenancy. There was a considerable amount of rubbish in black bags stored in various places in the property. The tenant had removed a wall lining to gain access to under the house where more rubbish, including black bags, had been stowed. Rubbish was also stored in other spaces inside the property. The landlord’s photos show
The shed was so full that the door could not easily be opened. Vermin were seen amongst the rubbish in the shed and black bags had torn or disintegrated, causing rubbish to spew between other bags and objects and onto the floor of the shed. The amount claimed for rubbish is $3,106.11. This is the amount awarded. In doing so I understand this is the cost of the skip bins and does not include any labour. I have checked the landlord’s original claim and amendments and cannot see that the landlord has claimed any amount larger than this sum in compensation for rubbish removal, including in her most recent submissions, provided after the case conference and before the hearing. In making a claim the applicant (the landlord in this instance) must ensure that the other party has reasonable notice of what is being claim as well as the sum being claimed.

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.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall repair, repaint and kitchen cabinetry
The landlord seeks $7,800.00 for repairs to the walls and repainting and repairs to kitchen cabinetry.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s evidence establishes that 13 holes were caused to walls mainly in the lounge/kitchen, bedrooms and halls. The landlord said only one bedroom had no holes in the walls. The size of the holes varies with the largest being about the size of a dinner plate. This is established by the landlord’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The photographs also show that the surfaces of painted walls have been damaged in that there are chips, scratches and in a number of places the top layer of the painted wallpaper has been torn away. I am satisfied a number of walls throughout the property required plastering at least in part. In addition to the wall surface damage, a half- wall by the staircase has been drawn on with a black marker.
The landlord has replaced the kitchen. Her photos establish that around 25% of the tiled top on a cabinet is missing; cupboard doors are missing and drawer fronts are damaged.
In considering amount of compensation the landlord is entitled to for the damage the factors I need to consider are: a) that 10 people have lived in the premises for around 8 and a half years. I am satisfied that the fair wear and tear on walls and the kitchen is likely to be more than would occur in a property where say 2 adults and 2 children were living. b) the number of holes in the wall and amount of damage to the painted surface of walls in my view establishes careless use by those persons living in the premises. c) the lounge/kitchen, 2 bedrooms and hallway in the main part of the house were painted when the 2021 renovations were done. The remainder of the house has not been repainted since the landlord purchased it in 2016. d) the kitchen has not been replaced since the house was purchased in 2016. The cabinets, bench tops and tiles are of an older style and in my view look to be at least 40 years old. From the landlord’s photographs I consider the damage to the kitchen is also caused by a combination of intentional damage, careless damage and wear and tear. e)betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I find painted walls in a tenanted property reasonably have a 10 year life span. I find the life span of painted walls in this instance would be less due to the number of tenants, particularly children in the premises. I find kitchen cabinetry has no more than a 40-50 year life span in a tenanted property.
The $7,800.00 claimed by the landlord is the amount she paid to Phil’s Property Maintenance who completed fixing all the holes and plastering, and painted the walls throughout the property with the exception of not painting about half the kitchen. The landlord said he did not paint any ceilings however his invoice dated 31 January 2025 includes painting ceilings. This contractor then stopped working and a second contractor was engaged to complete painting the interior of the house.
The second contractor’s invoice is for $17,599.81. It gives no details of work done, only a breakdown of costs for materials ($3,629.81) and labour ($13,970.00). The landlord says that he competed painting the ceilings and installed the new kitchen as well as doing other miscellaneous work (see paragraph 35 below), none of which is claimed for.
The first contractor had given a second quote for removing and replacing the kitchen for $3,770.00.
Based on what the landlord has not proven that the work to remedy the damage the invoices from the two contractors represent a significantly larger amount of work than the landlord has proven.
Taking into account all of the circumstances including the factors listed above I find the reasonable compensation for the damage to the walls is $3,525.00. I find this equates to $75.00 average to repair each hole ($975.00, being 13 x $75) and $200.00 per wall to repaint and carry out the plastering repair work to the surface of the walls in addition to the holes. As 2 holes were on the same wall I have calculated this at 12 walls (12 x $200.00 = $2,400.00), plus $150.00 for the wall that was drawn on with black marker.
I have not awarded any compensation for: a) painting any other walls or areas in the house as the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence, such as photographic evidence, to prove any other walls/areas were damaged. b) painting ceilings as find the landlord has not established that any ceilings were damaged by the tenants during the tenancy.
In relation to the kitchen I find the reasonable economic life span of the kitchen had expired before the end of this tenancy. However I am satisfied from the evidence, that the damage caused by the tenants has accelerated the need to replace the cabinetry and on that basis order $300.00 to be paid by the tenant. This is a greater sum than I might normally award, however the damage caused by the tenant is such that the kitchen should not be used in the state it was left in at the end of the tenancy particularly as the damaged tiled bench top is unhygienic. Window pane repairs
The landlord claims her insurance excess for window pane repairs. This is awarded as I am satisfied from the landlord’s photos that a number of window panes were broken at the end of the tenancy, The landlord’s insurer has paid for all of the panes to be repaired less the landlord’s excess of $500.00. Miscellaneous repairs
The landlord claims the second contractor’s claim for miscellaneous repairs. The landlord says she engaged the contractor for smaller general repairs that are needed to ensure the house is habitable, such as latch and door handle repair; resealing various surfaces; repairing fences and mailbox, repairs to window and door frames, curtain rails etc.
However, as explained at the hearing, the landlord has not proven her claim for this sum as she has not provided evidence to prove the damage claimed, or that it was caused by the tenant or others at the premises with her permission, or what the cost of the specific repairs is. As the applicant the landlord has the onus, or burden, of proving her claim. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, in making her claim the landlord must establish with evidence that what is claimed is proven to be “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”.
Accordingly this part of the claim is dismissed. Carpet and Vinyl
The landlord claims 50% of the cost to replace the carpet and vinyl. Both floor coverings were in the property when the landlord purchased the house in 2016.
The landlord says the carpet needed to be replaced as it was stained and smelled of pet urine at the end of the tenancy. She had the carpets professionally cleaned but maintains the smell remained. No independent evidence, such as a statement from the carpet cleaner or the carpet cleaner’s invoice, has been presented to verify the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord maintains the carpet was replaced when the 2021 renovations were done. However the carpet appears in my view to be carpet from around the 1960’s commonly known as ‘Axminster carpet’. The landlord was given the opportunity at the hearing of providing receipts from the 2021 carpet installation but declined the offer.
As set out above I find the carpet is more likely than not 1960’s carpet and that the life span of the carpet expired before the end of the tenancy. The tenant has not provided any photos to prove there were stains on the carpet. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet smelled at the end of the tenancy and award a nominal sum of $250.00 on that basis.
The vinyl in the bathroom was ripped during the tenancy. The vinyl is the same vinyl that was installed when the landlord purchased the property in 2016. I find the vinyl life span of vinyl in a tenanted property is around 10 years and that it is probable that this vinyl is more than 10 years old. I find the damage has accelerated the need to replace the vinyl and award $150.00 in compensation.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

The landlord claims loss of rent on the basis that the damage caused by the tenant has meant that the time the repairs have taken has resulted on the property not being re-tenanted as soon as it could have been. The property was re-let on 3 June 2025, some six and a half months after Ms Sydney’s tenancy ended.
At the end of every tenancy it is anticipated that a landlord needs to ensure the property is to the standard required under the RTA before it is re-tenanted. Often landlords will need to have to do some cleaning and repair work between tenancies.
Ms Sydney’s tenancy was for a relatively long period compared to other tenancies. Data from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development was reported in April 2025 as showing the average New Zealand residential tenancy is 50 months long 2 . In my view a tenancy where there are 10 people living in the property for over 8 years is probably going to require a reasonable time to refresh it before it is re-let. I find this is the case due to the expected wear and tear on the property, and regardless of whether the vacating tenants caused damage.
The landlord says there was difficulty getting contractors in over the summer holiday period which added to the delays, and generally time delays as contractors in the Waihi area are busy.
I am not convinced that the Landlord’s evidence supports this assertion. From the dates on the contractor’s invoices provided by the landlord, the rubbish was cleared from the property by mid-December; most of the painting was completed except for top coats on window frames, cupboards and skirtings by 31 December; the window panes were fixed by 6 January; the carpet and lino was installed before the end of February. That means the installation of the kitchen and whatever other work Chale’s Carpentry Services did appears to have caused any delays after the end of February. I note that Chale’s invoice is dated 30 June, albeit that the next tenancy started on 3 June 2025. I have not been provided with any detail of the work Chale’s did and therefore cannot be satisfied that the time the contractor took to do the work was reasonable.
Loss of rent is a loss that the landlord can recover as it is a loss suffered by the landlord as a direct consequence of the tenant failing to meet their obligations. I accept the repairs to the damage caused during the tenancy took some time to get done.
In my view, taking into consideration the above factors, the reasonable time frame for that work to be completed is 4 weeks, taking into account the time of year. In making this finding I am satisfied the work carried out before 6 January included work not proven as damage caused by the tenants, such as painting all walls and ceilings. 2 Reported by RNZ on 3 April 2025
Accordingly I award 4 weeks rent at $605.00/week ($2,240.00), which is the rent the tenant was paying. The landlord has proven that the premises was re- let at $750.00 per week. However I consider that higher rent was achieved not just as a result of the work to rectify and repair the tenant’s breaches but due to the new carpet, vinyl, kitchen and full repaint of the premises. That is, that level of rent would not have been achieved had the premises been re-let immediately after the work to remedy the tenant’s breaches had been completed. once the work I am not satisfied the landlord would have achieved that rent had the premises not had those fixtures Other matters
As the landlord has been substantially successful in her claim the filing fee is reimbursed.
Suppression: Under section 95A, RTA the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the claim order that the party’s name or identifying details not be published unless it considers publication is in the public interest or justified by the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case. The tenant is the successful party and has applied for suppression of their names. Accordingly suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119734 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119734 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions