How much money was awarded in case 5147891?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,687.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11784267-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5147891?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,687.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11784267-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 1085 Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5147891 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5147891 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147891 — net $613.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$224.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal, gardening and weeding	$280.00	Rubbish removal, gardening and weeding
Flea treatment	$350.00	Flea treatment
Damage to wall	$85.00	Damage to wall
Carpet replacement	$1,687.50	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$613.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$613.75

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $613.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2040.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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.

I accept the photographic evidence showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. She is therefore required to pay the invoiced cost of cleaning - $224.50.

I also accept the evidence that the carpet required flea treatment at the end of the tenancy. Although the tenant stated that she did not notice any fleas, I accept that there must have been an infestation given that the landlord specifically requested pest control and the technician undertaking the flea treatment noted a heavy infestation.

There was some rubbish left at the tenancy. Further the lawns and garden were not left in a reasonable state. The landlord claims $333.50 as the invoiced cost of remedying these issues. I am reducing this claim to $280.00 because the photographs do not show the lawns and garden to be significantly overgrown and there was a minor amount of rubbish to be removed.

As discussed at today’s hearing, a tenant is required to leave premises in a reasonable condition – not in a condition suitable for the next tenant. That is the landlord’s obligation.

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.

The tenant accepted that there was damage to a wall during her tenancy and accepted the cost of repair - $85.00.

The photographs show that the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2 and in the lounge were stained. The amount of staining shows that this was beyond fair wear and tear.

The landlord claims $1,687.50 as the depreciated cost of replacing the carpet. The cost of replacement was $3,687.34 and the landlords were charged $750.00 insurance excess for each room that was recarpeted – a total cost of $2,250.00 to the landlord.

The tenant stated that she ought not to have to pay for the cost of replacing the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2 because the carpet in those rooms were not significantly stained and could have been repaired by cutting out the stains and replacing them with a square of carpet.

However the photographs show not only significant staining in the lounge, but also stains in different parts of the bedrooms. I consider that cutting out the stains and replacing them with carpet squares would be impractical and unsightly.

I note also that the landlord attempted to have the stains removed by a carpet cleaner but that the treatment was unsuccessful.

On this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant ought to pay the depreciated cost of replacing the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2 and the lounge - $1,687.50. Filing fee reimbursement

I am also ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful in the claim against her. Suppression of names

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I am ordering suppression of the landlord’s name pursuant to s95A(3) – the landlord applied for suppression and was substantially successful in their claim.

I am also ordering suppression of the tenant’s name. This is on my own initiative and pursuant to s95A(1).

I do so because I do not see any public interest in having the tenant’s name published. She impressed as a sincere person who says that she has learned a lot from these proceedings – lessons that she will take into her current tenancy. In all other regards was a good tenant and the benefit of suppression of her name, in my view, far outweighs any possible public interest in publication. C ter Haar 01 May 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147891 — net $613.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$224.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal, gardening and weeding	$280.00	Rubbish removal, gardening and weeding
Flea treatment	$350.00	Flea treatment
Damage to wall	$85.00	Damage to wall
Carpet replacement	$1,687.50	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$613.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$613.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $613.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2040.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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.
I accept the photographic evidence showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. She is therefore required to pay the invoiced cost of cleaning - $224.50.
I also accept the evidence that the carpet required flea treatment at the end of the tenancy. Although the tenant stated that she did not notice any fleas, I accept that there must have been an infestation given that the landlord specifically requested pest control and the technician undertaking the flea treatment noted a heavy infestation.
There was some rubbish left at the tenancy. Further the lawns and garden were not left in a reasonable state. The landlord claims $333.50 as the invoiced cost of remedying these issues. I am reducing this claim to $280.00 because the photographs do not show the lawns and garden to be significantly overgrown and there was a minor amount of rubbish to be removed.
As discussed at today’s hearing, a tenant is required to leave premises in a reasonable condition – not in a condition suitable for the next tenant. That is the landlord’s obligation.

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.
The tenant accepted that there was damage to a wall during her tenancy and accepted the cost of repair - $85.00.
The photographs show that the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2 and in the lounge were stained. The amount of staining shows that this was beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord claims $1,687.50 as the depreciated cost of replacing the carpet. The cost of replacement was $3,687.34 and the landlords were charged $750.00 insurance excess for each room that was recarpeted – a total cost of $2,250.00 to the landlord.
The tenant stated that she ought not to have to pay for the cost of replacing the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2 because the carpet in those rooms were not significantly stained and could have been repaired by cutting out the stains and replacing them with a square of carpet.
However the photographs show not only significant staining in the lounge, but also stains in different parts of the bedrooms. I consider that cutting out the stains and replacing them with carpet squares would be impractical and unsightly.
I note also that the landlord attempted to have the stains removed by a carpet cleaner but that the treatment was unsuccessful.
On this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant ought to pay the depreciated cost of replacing the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2 and the lounge - $1,687.50. Filing fee reimbursement
I am also ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful in the claim against her. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am ordering suppression of the landlord’s name pursuant to s95A(3) – the landlord applied for suppression and was substantially successful in their claim.
I am also ordering suppression of the tenant’s name. This is on my own initiative and pursuant to s95A(1).
I do so because I do not see any public interest in having the tenant’s name published. She impressed as a sincere person who says that she has learned a lot from these proceedings – lessons that she will take into her current tenancy. In all other regards was a good tenant and the benefit of suppression of her name, in my view, far outweighs any possible public interest in publication. C ter Haar 01 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147891 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 1085 Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147891 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 1085 Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions