How much money was awarded in case 5127870?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $947.91 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls In 4 Rooms: $2,162.26 awarded to landlord; Replace 9 Doors: $483.08 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Cabinet Door: $154.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,929.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127870?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12635047-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5127870?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $947.91 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls In 4 Rooms: $2,162.26 awarded to landlord; Replace 9 Doors: $483.08 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Cabinet Door: $154.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,929.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127870?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12635047-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Brian Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5127870 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5127870 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127870 — net $5,546.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,929.70	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$267.38	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$947.91	Window repairs
Repairs: replace 9 doors	$483.08	Repairs: replace 9 doors
Repairs: holes in walls in 4 rooms	$2,162.26	Repairs: holes in walls in 4 rooms
Repairs: replace kitchen cabinet door	$154.56	Repairs: replace kitchen cabinet door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,546.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,546.89

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale $5,546.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3396316-012) to Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale immediately.

Reasons

Ms Robinson, representing the landlord, attended the in-person hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, failure to perform tenant responsibilities, lock claim pursuant to section 46 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord said the tenancy ended on 1 December 2024.

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.

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided an Exit Inspection Report dated 2 December 2024 with photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided routine inspection reports dated 22 November 2019 (the closest inspection report to the entry date of 16 August 2019 but there was no Entry Inspection Report provided), 15 January 2024 and 17 October 2024. The landlord also provided a number of invoices. Cleaning

The landlord said the tenants did not maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, either during their tenancy or at the end of their tenancy. The landlord claimed a total of $2,058.00 for cleaning both during the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for $1,058.00 dated 29 May 2024 for cleaning during the tenancy. The landlord said they had brought up with the tenants that they had to keep the property clean and tidy, gave them a chance to clean up but when they did not clean the property, the landlord engaged a cleaner to do so. The landlord did not provide the date this cleaning was completed, and the routine inspection reports provided were several months apart from the date of the cleaning invoice of 29 May 2025. The landlord did not provide copies of any 14-day breach notices issued to the tenants about the cleaning issues either. I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for the cost of cleaning during the tenancy, which was $1,058.00 as claimed, and so dismiss this claim.

In relation to the landlord’s claim for cleaning at the end of the tenancy, the photographs in the Exit Inspection Report show several areas of the property which required cleaning, such as the kitchen, bathroom and other areas. Given the amount of rubbish that had to be removed from the property, which is dealt with below, I accept that there would have been cleaning required after the rubbish was removed from the property. As rubbish was found strewn everywhere throughout the property, I accept that a full house clean would have been required.

The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning at the end of the tenancy which claimed for 20 hours of cleaning @ $50.00 per hour. However, the property manager said there was one cleaner at the property for one day. Given this evidence and the photographic evidence of the condition of the property, I find it reasonable to allow for 10 hours of cleaning @ $50.00 per hour, coming to $500.00, plus GST of $75.00, for a total of $575.00 to clean at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I award the landlord $575.00 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal

The landlord said the tenants left a significant amount of rubbish at the end of the tenancy, which had to be removed and disposed of. The photographs in the Exit Inspection Report showed a huge amount of items left by the tenants, including chairs, signs, personal rubbish strewn throughout the property, rubbish bags, broken printer, blankets, tables, broken TV, tyre rim and tyre outside, kitchen cupboards full of the tenant’s kitchen items including pots and pans, a clothing rack, most cupboards and wardrobes full of rubbish and a large amount of clothing and other rubbish in the laundry area. Outside photographs show general rubbish mixed with recycling bins, couch, fadges full of rubbish and other rubbish in the garage.

The landlord claimed a total of $1,929.70 to remove and dispose of rubbish, being two invoices for $1,526.05 and $403.65. There were charges on both of these invoices for boarding up the property, which were removed before considering just the rubbish removal costs claimed in both invoices. The larger invoice apparently dealt with the initial amount of rubbish discovered, but the landlord said that subsequent to the initial rubbish removal, the workers discovered even more rubbish that was hidden under overgrown ivy, and so further time and disposal fees were also required to remove a second load of rubbish.

Given the photographic evidence and other evidence of the significant amount of rubbish found everywhere both inside and outside of the property at the end of the tenancy, I find that cost claimed for the labour and disposal fees to remove and dispose of all the rubbish to be reasonable. Therefore, I award the landlord $1,929.70 to remove and dispose of the rubbish left by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. Lock replacement

The landlord said they found the front door damaged and so got into the property that way at the end of the tenancy, given the tenants had already left and did not show up for the final inspection. The property manager said she did not have a key to the property, as the tenants had changed the locks during the tenancy, without the landlord’s consent, which is dealt with below. The property manager said the property had to be secured and locks were replaced in the front and back doors. The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $267.38 to replace these locks, which I find is reasonable given the evidence. Thus, I award the landlord $267.38 to replace the front and back door locks at the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Replacement of doors a. That the tenants significantly damaged 9 doors in the property, including 4 x wardrobe doors, kitchen door, 2 bedroom doors, the bathroom door and the living room door, as per the invoice they provided to replace these doors. The landlord also claimed for the replacement of the front and back doors, which would then come to 11 door replacements in this claim. b. The landlord provided Exit Inspection Report with photographs. The photographs showed the damage to the front door, 4 x wardrobe doors, the kitchen door, 2 bedroom doors and the bathroom door, which is 9 doors that I find the landlord has proven required replacement. c. I find the damage to these 9 doors to be intentional on the tenants’ part. As the damage is intentional, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. d. The photographs provided did not adequately show any damage to the living room door or back door. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the claim for these 2 doors and so dismiss this claim for 2 of the doors. e. The landlord claimed $2,415.38 to replace the doors and provided an invoice showing 9 doors replaced at a cost of $2,415.38, being $268.38 per door. Given the evidence, I find the cost claimed reasonable before considering depreciation. f. 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. g. In relation to the 9 doors replaced, the landlord estimated that the doors would have been at least 20 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of doors in a rental property is around 25 years. As such, I deduct the $2,415.38 cost I find reasonable to replace 9 doors by 80% for depreciation to an award of $483.08 to replace 9 doors in the property at the end of the tenancy. Holes in the walls h. The landlord said the tenant caused large holes in at least 4 rooms, the living room, toilet, one bedroom and the hallway. Whilst the tenants had attempted to plaster some of these holes, the plastering repair by the tenants had not been adequate, according to the landlord. The landlord provided photographs of the large holes plastered by the tenants and other holes not plastered by the tenants, in each of these 4 areas. i. Given the evidence provided, I find the holes in the walls in these 4 areas in the property to be intentional damage on the part of the tenants. As the damage is intentional, the tenants are liable for the full repair cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. j. The landlord claimed $3,362.26 to repair all the holes in these walls and to repaint the walls after plastering the holes. The landlord provided an invoice with a few line items relating to this repair work, including $692.53 to supply and fit the lining with plasterboard including stopping for each room, for gib stopping including corners tape, plaster and labour for the 4 rooms in the amount of $479.92 and for preparing, sanding and painting all the walls in the 4 rooms at a cost of $2,189.81. Whilst it is not apportioned in the invoice, I take the last line item of $2,189.81 and estimate that most of that time, likely around $2,000.00. was involved in painting the walls, which is subject to depreciation. k. The landlord estimated the property had last been painted inside the property around 5 or 6 years ago, before the tenancy began in 2019. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $2,000.00 I find can be apportioned to painting the walls, and I consider reasonable, by 60% for depreciation to an award of $800.00 to paint the walls. This is to be added to the remaining cost of $1,362.26 outside of painting, for plastering and gibbing these walls, for a total of $2,162.26 for plastering and painting all the holes in the walls in the 4 areas listed above. Kitchen cabinet doors l. The landlord said the tenant removed the kitchen cabinet doors and provided photographs showing this at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed $257.60 to replace the kitchen cabinet doors. m. Given the evidence, I find this to be intentional damage on the tenants’ part. As it is intentional damage, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. n. The landlord said the kitchen cabinet doors were likely about 20 years old, along with the doors. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of cabinet doors in a rental property is around 50 years. As such, I deduct the $257.60 cost I find reasonable to replace the kitchen cabinet doors by 40% for depreciation to an award of $154.56 to replace the kitchen cabinet doors. Broken windows o. The landlord said the tenants broke windows in the toilet, dining room and kitchen, being 3 windows. The landlord claimed $188.91 to repair the toilet window and $759.00 to repair the dining room and kitchen windows. The cost claimed was just for reglazing, not for replacing any window framing. I find the total cost claimed of $947.91 to replace these 3 windows to be reasonable, given the size of the windows and evidence provided. I do not consider depreciation here, given the repairs only involved reglazing the glass in the windows. Therefore, I award the landlord $947.91 to reglaze these 3 windows. p. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Locks

The landlord claimed the tenants changed the locks to the property without their consent during the tenancy, pursuant to section 46 RTA.

Changing the locks without the landlord’s consent during the tenant is an unlawful act pursuant to section 46(3) of the RTA and can incur maximum exemplary damages of $1,500.00. See Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The property manager said she thought that she discovered the locks had been changed during her routine inspection on 17 October 2024. However, in reviewing the comments in the Inspection Report of 17 October 2024, there was no mention by the property manager of the tenants’ changing the locks. The property manager did not have recall of whether it might have occurred on another date. There was no additional supporting evidence provided as to this claim, even correspondence to the tenants, or any 14-day notice about this, for example. I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim.

As the locks claim is dismissed, it follows that the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to the tenants changing the locks without consent is also dismissed. Refund of the bond

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3396316-012) to Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale immediately. Filing fee

Because Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127870 — net $5,546.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,929.70	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$267.38	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$947.91	Window repairs
Repairs: replace 9 doors	$483.08	Repairs: replace 9 doors
Repairs: holes in walls in 4 rooms	$2,162.26	Repairs: holes in walls in 4 rooms
Repairs: replace kitchen cabinet door	$154.56	Repairs: replace kitchen cabinet door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,546.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,546.89

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale $5,546.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3396316-012) to Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale immediately.

Reasons

Ms Robinson, representing the landlord, attended the in-person hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord said the tenancy ended on 1 December 2024.

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

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved. Locks

The landlord claimed the tenants changed the locks to the property without their consent during the tenancy, pursuant to section 46 RTA.

As the locks claim is dismissed, it follows that the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to the tenants changing the locks without consent is also dismissed. Refund of the bond

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3396316-012) to Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale immediately. Filing fee

Because Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Rob &Jodi Veale has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127870 — Property damage at 30 Brian Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127870 — Property damage at 30 Brian Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.