What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145549 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5145549?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $660.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $134.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,940.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $88.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145549?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11613538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145549 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5145549?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $660.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $134.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,940.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $88.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145549?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11613538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5145549 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5145549 — net $9,313.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$134.38	Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$88.86	Replace smoke alarms
Window repairs	$780.00	Window repairs
Cleaning	$660.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,940.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$260.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$5,100.00	Repairs
Carpet cleaning	$350.00	Carpet cleaning
Net award	$9,313.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,313.24

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,313.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Tenant 1] initially applied for her bond to be returned and for compensation for a breach of Healthy Homes Standards by the landlord. She has withdrawn the latter claim.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond was released to the landlord in early 2025 after they made a one- party claim for it having not been able to contact [Tenant 1] by phone. They applied the bond to the rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy ended on 18 November by tenant notice. The last three weeks of the tenancy appear not to have had rent paid.
[Tenant 1] was sure that Work and Income New Zealand had paid all the rent. I therefore provided her with time after the hearing to establish that in evidence. She did not provide any contradicting evidence, I therefore accept the rent summary provided by the landlord.
Accordingly, I find the bond was appropriately applied to rent arrears.

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

The landlord claims compensation for having to clean the property, in particular the kitchen and some windows that had paintings on them, remove rubbish, mow the lawns, replace the lock and a smoke alarm. It is not in dispute that they allowed over a week post tenancy for the issues to be remedied by the tenant. The arrangement was that [Guarantor 1] who was a guarantor of this tenancy but also resided there, was to attend to the work. This is the agreement he came to with [Tenant 1] and the landlord.
[Tenant 1] provided an email from [Guarantor 1] confirming this arrangement. However, he then failed to complete the work or engage with the landlord. Accordingly, none of the issues agreed at the exit inspection were attended to, and the property remained as it was at the exit inspection (which [Guarantor 1] attended and [Tenant 1] did not).
[Tenant 1] challenged the dates upon which the supporting photos were taken as she says the house was not fully completed when she moved in, and it was cleaner than depicted at the end. Photos taken at the exit inspection and at the beginning of the tenancy were provided to the Tribunal and the dates were evidenced by date stamps. The law and discussion
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that 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.
The evidence is that the majority of the items were [Guarantor 1]’s to remove, and he had agreed he had dismantled the smoke alarms. He had the key, and did not return it as agreed. The carpets and oven were new at the commencement of the tenancy.
After assessing the photos and the invoice I am satisfied that the amounts claimed are proven and reasonable in the circumstances. There was a considerable number of belongings and rubbish left at the property and an unconsented porch and hutch/animal run that needed to be dismantled and removed. The keys had not been returned and the three smoke alarms that were provided with the tenancy had been removed. The carpets were heavily stained, some with oil, there was painting on some windows and the oven was particularly dirty.
Accordingly, the amounts are ordered as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for having to replace the window glass in the lounge and bedroom that had been broken, remove silicon that had been put in holes throughout the property, and plaster, sand and paint a number of holes, scratches and marks throughout the property. The damage was in every room, but particularly in [Guarantor 1]’s room. The walls had been freshly painted at the commencement of this 18-month tenancy.
[Tenant 1] agrees there was some damage but considers some of it fair wear and tear. She says she had started plastering some of the holes, but [Guarantor 1] was supposed to finish off the work before the property was handed back. It was her understanding that he would repair all of the damage. The law
To be successful in such a claim, 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. The insurance excess here was $2,500 and the landlord advises that the damage was not covered by the policy.
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. Discussion
Having considered the evidence very carefully, I am satisfied that the majority of the damage was well in excess of fair wear and tear. There are some large holes in walls and doors and some large screw holes. The extent of the damage indicates that it was a mixture of careless and intentional damage. In particular the filling of the holes with silicone (rather than plaster) was intentional and required a considerable amount of time to rectify.
I am satisfied that the amount should be ordered as sought with a small deduction made to account for depreciation of the paintwork. This is because a 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 paintwork at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence.
I note that [Tenant 1] was the sole tenant here, she is therefore liable under the RTA to the landlord. Any dispute she has with [Guarantor 1] regarding his liability would need to be determined in the Disputes Tribunal. Guarantor
On 17 May 2023 the guarantors, [names redacted], provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that the guarantor would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations. Specifically, the guarantee stated: By being a guarantor, you are effectively guaranteeing that all payments due by the tenant in this tenancy will be made by you if the tenant defaults any payments. Essentially you will become liable for the tenants enforcing debts if they do not pay them. The guarantor agrees that they will underwrite and assist in the upholding of this agreement and financial obligations that the tenants have or may incur as a result of this tenancy.
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $9,313.24 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantors are liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) RTA. Filing fee
Both parties were put to the cost of filing their claims and given the outcome of the hearing I consider those costs should lie as they fall. Suppression
Given [Tenant 1] attended the hearing and consented to a number of the claims, I approve her application for suppression. I also approve the landlord’s as they were substantially successful in their claims.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5145549 — net $9,313.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$134.38	Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$88.86	Replace smoke alarms
Window repairs	$780.00	Window repairs
Cleaning	$660.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,940.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$260.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$5,100.00	Repairs
Carpet cleaning	$350.00	Carpet cleaning
Net award	$9,313.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,313.24

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,313.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Tenant 1] initially applied for her bond to be returned and for compensation for a breach of Healthy Homes Standards by the landlord. She has withdrawn the latter claim.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond was released to the landlord in early 2025 after they made a one- party claim for it having not been able to contact [Tenant 1] by phone. They applied the bond to the rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy ended on 18 November by tenant notice. The last three weeks of the tenancy appear not to have had rent paid.
[Tenant 1] was sure that Work and Income New Zealand had paid all the rent. I therefore provided her with time after the hearing to establish that in evidence. She did not provide any contradicting evidence, I therefore accept the rent summary provided by the landlord.
Accordingly, I find the bond was appropriately applied to rent arrears.

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

The landlord claims compensation for having to clean the property, in particular the kitchen and some windows that had paintings on them, remove rubbish, mow the lawns, replace the lock and a smoke alarm. It is not in dispute that they allowed over a week post tenancy for the issues to be remedied by the tenant. The arrangement was that [Guarantor 1] who was a guarantor of this tenancy but also resided there, was to attend to the work. This is the agreement he came to with [Tenant 1] and the landlord.
[Tenant 1] provided an email from [Guarantor 1] confirming this arrangement. However, he then failed to complete the work or engage with the landlord. Accordingly, none of the issues agreed at the exit inspection were attended to, and the property remained as it was at the exit inspection (which [Guarantor 1] attended and [Tenant 1] did not).
[Tenant 1] challenged the dates upon which the supporting photos were taken as she says the house was not fully completed when she moved in, and it was cleaner than depicted at the end. Photos taken at the exit inspection and at the beginning of the tenancy were provided to the Tribunal and the dates were evidenced by date stamps. The law and discussion
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that 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.
The evidence is that the majority of the items were [Guarantor 1]’s to remove, and he had agreed he had dismantled the smoke alarms. He had the key, and did not return it as agreed. The carpets and oven were new at the commencement of the tenancy.
After assessing the photos and the invoice I am satisfied that the amounts claimed are proven and reasonable in the circumstances. There was a considerable number of belongings and rubbish left at the property and an unconsented porch and hutch/animal run that needed to be dismantled and removed. The keys had not been returned and the three smoke alarms that were provided with the tenancy had been removed. The carpets were heavily stained, some with oil, there was painting on some windows and the oven was particularly dirty.
Accordingly, the amounts are ordered as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for having to replace the window glass in the lounge and bedroom that had been broken, remove silicon that had been put in holes throughout the property, and plaster, sand and paint a number of holes, scratches and marks throughout the property. The damage was in every room, but particularly in [Guarantor 1]’s room. The walls had been freshly painted at the commencement of this 18-month tenancy.
[Tenant 1] agrees there was some damage but considers some of it fair wear and tear. She says she had started plastering some of the holes, but [Guarantor 1] was supposed to finish off the work before the property was handed back. It was her understanding that he would repair all of the damage. The law
To be successful in such a claim, 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. The insurance excess here was $2,500 and the landlord advises that the damage was not covered by the policy.
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. Discussion
Having considered the evidence very carefully, I am satisfied that the majority of the damage was well in excess of fair wear and tear. There are some large holes in walls and doors and some large screw holes. The extent of the damage indicates that it was a mixture of careless and intentional damage. In particular the filling of the holes with silicone (rather than plaster) was intentional and required a considerable amount of time to rectify.
I am satisfied that the amount should be ordered as sought with a small deduction made to account for depreciation of the paintwork. This is because a 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 paintwork at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence.
I note that [Tenant 1] was the sole tenant here, she is therefore liable under the RTA to the landlord. Any dispute she has with [Guarantor 1] regarding his liability would need to be determined in the Disputes Tribunal. Guarantor
On 17 May 2023 the guarantors, [names redacted], provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that the guarantor would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations. Specifically, the guarantee stated: By being a guarantor, you are effectively guaranteeing that all payments due by the tenant in this tenancy will be made by you if the tenant defaults any payments. Essentially you will become liable for the tenants enforcing debts if they do not pay them. The guarantor agrees that they will underwrite and assist in the upholding of this agreement and financial obligations that the tenants have or may incur as a result of this tenancy.
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $9,313.24 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantors are liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) RTA. Filing fee
Both parties were put to the cost of filing their claims and given the outcome of the hearing I consider those costs should lie as they fall. Suppression
Given [Tenant 1] attended the hearing and consented to a number of the claims, I approve her application for suppression. I also approve the landlord’s as they were substantially successful in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145549 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145549 — Property damage

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