What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120089 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 5120089?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,520.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,700.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $731.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $267.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11688575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120089 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 5120089?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,520.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,700.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $731.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $267.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11688575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120089 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120089 — net $7,769.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 October 2024	$731.43	Rent arrears to 1 October 2024
Water rates to 1 October 2024	$267.87	Water rates to 1 October 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,520.88	Cleaning
Repairs	$3,700.00	Repairs
Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess	$2,800.00	Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,769.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,769.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stephen Prosser must pay [The landlord/s] $21,016.94 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,517.30 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings that were held over two separate days.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $731.43 for rent arrears and $267.87 for water rates (usage) at the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy, and they were required to engage professional cleaners to have the property cleaned. A cleaning invoice has been provided for $1,520.88 together with photographs.
The tenant does not dispute that cleaning was required and accordingly I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord also claims for the invoiced cost of carpet cleaning of $240.00 to try and remove yellow staining throughout the property. This staining is evident in the provided photographs.
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. Damage to interior and carpet
The landlord claims for damage to the carpet and damage throughout the interior of the property, including to the walls and a bathroom vanity. Pre and post tenancy photographs have been provided by the landlord.
The landlord says that several other items were damaged and required cleaning or repair, including to the curtains and blinds, light fittings, the exterior and other areas, however the amounts to remedy these additional issues are not being claimed by the landlord. Carpet
The landlord says that despite engaging professional carpet cleaners, the excessive staining was unable to be removed. As noted in the carpet cleaning invoice, there were yellow stains throughout the carpet that were thought to be dog urine and the landlord advised that there were around 28 individual animal urine stains.
Originally the landlord claimed for the full cost to replace the carpet ($10,275.06), however at the hearing, the landlord advised that they were able to obtain insurance for the carpet and were only seeking the excess costs. The insurance company had considered each room with damaged carpet a separate event and were charging five excesses of $750.00. The total being claimed by the landlord was therefore $3,750.00, representing carpet damage to the three bedrooms, lounge, and dining/hallway.
The landlord advises that the carpet was less than four years old at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the suggested age of the carpet and says that it was quite dated and old. Although he accepts responsibility for some of the staining, he says that some marks were caused by water ingress at the property (and has provided videos in support), and he had advised the property manager throughout the tenancy of these issues. He also says he believes that pets were in the property prior to his occupancy.
Carpet staining throughout the house can clearly be seen in the provided photographs.
However, in a tenancy of around four years, some carpet wear and tear is expected.
I am satisfied that some of the damage to the carpet was caused carelessly by the tenant, but not all. I have therefore awarded a portion of the claimed insurance excesses of $2,800.00, noting that each item of damage has been individually considered with respect to the tenant’s liability. See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA. Interior damage
The landlord claims that there was damage to the internal doors from animal scratches, bolts left in walls and marks on the walls and doors throughout the property. There is also a claim for the bathroom sink vanity that is alleged to have been damaged.
An invoice has been provided for the works and includes preparation and painting to the ceilings, walls, and doors, as well as timber trims and liners throughout the house. It also includes painting repairs to the bathroom sink vanity. The invoice totals $9,499.00 and includes multiple individual items of damage (however it is not itemised with amounts against each individual item of repair). As a result of the number of individual damaged items, the insurance excesses would have exceeded the claimed repair costs and insurance was not obtained by the landlord.
The tenant again accepts some of the items, however, says that some of the items being claimed are fair wear and tear, and to be expected after the tenancy term. The tenant also refutes any claims that this damage was intentional. The tenant does not think he should be responsible for the cost of the owner fully re- decorating the property prior to moving back in. The tenant also stated that there were various items of disrepair that he had advised the property manager about that were not repaired and this has contributed to the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
Again, I am satisfied that some of the interior damage was caused carelessly by the tenant, but not all. Some of it is likely to be a result of fair wear and tear and to be expected.
I have awarded a portion of the claimed costs. As mentioned above, the invoice is not itemised, so I have had to instead apportion these myself. I have awarded the landlord $3,700.00 towards the costs to remedy the damage to the doors, walls, woodwork, and bathroom sink vanity. I have roughly deducted an amount for the ceiling and further amounts to reflect fair wear and tear. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet in five rooms, walls, doors, bathroom vanity and woodwork (timber trims and liners). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
There were other items referred to by the landlord, such as the shade sail hooks and gardening – however, no invoices or quotes have been provided to support these claims and accordingly these additional claims are dismissed.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 8 April 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120089 — net $7,769.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 October 2024	$731.43	Rent arrears to 1 October 2024
Water rates to 1 October 2024	$267.87	Water rates to 1 October 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,520.88	Cleaning
Repairs	$3,700.00	Repairs
Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess	$2,800.00	Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,769.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,769.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stephen Prosser must pay [The landlord/s] $21,016.94 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,517.30 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings that were held over two separate days.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $731.43 for rent arrears and $267.87 for water rates (usage) at the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy, and they were required to engage professional cleaners to have the property cleaned. A cleaning invoice has been provided for $1,520.88 together with photographs.
The tenant does not dispute that cleaning was required and accordingly I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord also claims for the invoiced cost of carpet cleaning of $240.00 to try and remove yellow staining throughout the property. This staining is evident in the provided photographs.
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. Damage to interior and carpet
The landlord claims for damage to the carpet and damage throughout the interior of the property, including to the walls and a bathroom vanity. Pre and post tenancy photographs have been provided by the landlord.
The landlord says that several other items were damaged and required cleaning or repair, including to the curtains and blinds, light fittings, the exterior and other areas, however the amounts to remedy these additional issues are not being claimed by the landlord. Carpet
The landlord says that despite engaging professional carpet cleaners, the excessive staining was unable to be removed. As noted in the carpet cleaning invoice, there were yellow stains throughout the carpet that were thought to be dog urine and the landlord advised that there were around 28 individual animal urine stains.
Originally the landlord claimed for the full cost to replace the carpet ($10,275.06), however at the hearing, the landlord advised that they were able to obtain insurance for the carpet and were only seeking the excess costs. The insurance company had considered each room with damaged carpet a separate event and were charging five excesses of $750.00. The total being claimed by the landlord was therefore $3,750.00, representing carpet damage to the three bedrooms, lounge, and dining/hallway.
The landlord advises that the carpet was less than four years old at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the suggested age of the carpet and says that it was quite dated and old. Although he accepts responsibility for some of the staining, he says that some marks were caused by water ingress at the property (and has provided videos in support), and he had advised the property manager throughout the tenancy of these issues. He also says he believes that pets were in the property prior to his occupancy.
Carpet staining throughout the house can clearly be seen in the provided photographs.
However, in a tenancy of around four years, some carpet wear and tear is expected.
I am satisfied that some of the damage to the carpet was caused carelessly by the tenant, but not all. I have therefore awarded a portion of the claimed insurance excesses of $2,800.00, noting that each item of damage has been individually considered with respect to the tenant’s liability. See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA. Interior damage
The landlord claims that there was damage to the internal doors from animal scratches, bolts left in walls and marks on the walls and doors throughout the property. There is also a claim for the bathroom sink vanity that is alleged to have been damaged.
An invoice has been provided for the works and includes preparation and painting to the ceilings, walls, and doors, as well as timber trims and liners throughout the house. It also includes painting repairs to the bathroom sink vanity. The invoice totals $9,499.00 and includes multiple individual items of damage (however it is not itemised with amounts against each individual item of repair). As a result of the number of individual damaged items, the insurance excesses would have exceeded the claimed repair costs and insurance was not obtained by the landlord.
The tenant again accepts some of the items, however, says that some of the items being claimed are fair wear and tear, and to be expected after the tenancy term. The tenant also refutes any claims that this damage was intentional. The tenant does not think he should be responsible for the cost of the owner fully re- decorating the property prior to moving back in. The tenant also stated that there were various items of disrepair that he had advised the property manager about that were not repaired and this has contributed to the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
Again, I am satisfied that some of the interior damage was caused carelessly by the tenant, but not all. Some of it is likely to be a result of fair wear and tear and to be expected.
I have awarded a portion of the claimed costs. As mentioned above, the invoice is not itemised, so I have had to instead apportion these myself. I have awarded the landlord $3,700.00 towards the costs to remedy the damage to the doors, walls, woodwork, and bathroom sink vanity. I have roughly deducted an amount for the ceiling and further amounts to reflect fair wear and tear. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet in five rooms, walls, doors, bathroom vanity and woodwork (timber trims and liners). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
There were other items referred to by the landlord, such as the shade sail hooks and gardening – however, no invoices or quotes have been provided to support these claims and accordingly these additional claims are dismissed.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 8 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120089 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120089 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

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 and 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions