What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148473 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 5148473?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $556.30 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $28.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,666.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $142.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148473?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148473?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12109630-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148473 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 5148473?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $556.30 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $28.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,666.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $142.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148473?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148473?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12109630-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148473 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148473 — net $895.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 06 January 2025	$142.14	Rent arrears to 06 January 2025
Cleaning	$556.30	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Missing light bulb and light shade	$28.22	Missing light bulb and light shade
Repairs	$1,666.51	Repairs
Net award	$895.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$895.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Reokore Maria Olive Thompson must pay [The landlord/s] $895.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[Property Manager] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 01 April 2021 and ended on 06 January 2025. On 12 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears to 06 January 2025 ($142.14), ii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish ($556.30), iii. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($207.00), iv. Failed to leave the lawns and grounds in a reasonable condition ($115.00), v. Is responsible for missing chattels (light bulb and light shade) ($10.24, $24.98), vi. Is responsible for damage to: a. The underfloor insulation ($771.49), b. Ranchslider ($770.00), c. Light shade ($24.98), d. Bedroom door ($37.25), e. Base of house ($24.57), f. Balustrade on deck ($29.40), g. Lounge room walls ($54.32).
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The property, constructed in the 1990’s, comprises of three-bedrooms, an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area, a bathroom, a separate toilet, and a laundry.
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) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced both pre and end of tenancy inspection reports which include photographs.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property, the lawns, and grounds (including damage caused by a dog kept at the property which dug holes in the lawn), and the carpet reasonably clean and or tidy. I am also satisfied that the tenant is responsible for a missing light bulb in the main living room.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The light shades are listed in the tenancy agreement as chattels. A shade in one of the bedrooms is missing. The landlord states that the light shades were new at the commencement of the tenancy. The missing shade was replaced like for like.
When awarding compensation for missing chattels, the Tribunal must also consider betterment. 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 betterment, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan.
Light shades in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of approximately 10 years. The shade was therefore halfway through its useful lifespan, I reduce the claim by 30% and award the landlord $17.98.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
The landlord has insurance for damage caused by tenants with an excess of $1,050.00 per claim.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, as is the case for missing chattels, the Tribunal must also consider 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 considering betterment and calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Damage
The landlord states that the property had been freshly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage occurring during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord conducted some of the repairs themselves and is seeking costs of materials only. For those repairs completed by contractors, the landlord has produced invoices. In each case, the Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison. Underfloor insulation
The tenant allowed their dog to access under the house. The photographs produced show that approximately two-thirds of the underfloor insulation has been pulled down and ripped. The insulation was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is consistent with having been caused by an animal. The contractor’s invoice notes that this is most likely the cause.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I make no reduction for betterment. The amount claimed is awarded. Ranchslider
A photograph of the aluminium ranchslider, taken at the end of the tenancy, which opens off the lounge, shows a large hole in the bottom left corner and bent or broken door handles. The landlord states that the glass in the door had been replaced at the commencement of the tenancy and that the door was otherwise in good condition. The landlord believes the damage was likely caused by the door being repeatedly slammed with force.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Ranchslider doors in rental properties have an estimated useful life span of between 30 and 50 years. The door handles are typically high use areas. The ranchslider appears to be an original feature and is likely more than thirty years old. Taking into account betterment, I reduce the claim by 5% and award the landlord $731.50. Light shades in bedrooms
The landlord has produced photographs showing a missing light shade in one bedroom, which I have dealt with as a missing chattel, and a cracked shade in another bedroom. The damaged shade is made of glass and appears a standard type. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord replaced the shade like for like.
Light shades in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of 10 years. As the shade was halfway through its useful lifespan, I reduce the claim by 30% and award the landlord $17.98. Bedroom door and lounge walls
The landlord has produced photographs of a door to one of the bedrooms with a medium sized impact hole, and lounge walls which have minor damage including scuffs, scratches, mismatched paint, and what the landlord describes as multiple stab marks made with a sharp object. The doors and walls had been freshly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord completed the repairs themselves and is claiming only the costs of the materials used. Only the affected areas were repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. Wooden deck and fibrolite base of house.
The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to two areas of the wooden deck. The damage is consistent with having been caused by an animal. The tenant kept a dog at the property. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the dog tethered to the deck. The landlord has also produced a photograph showing damage to a small section of the fibrolite base of the house near a drain.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord completed the repairs themselves and is claiming the material costs only. Only the affected areas were repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful in these proceedings, seeks and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148473 — net $895.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 06 January 2025	$142.14	Rent arrears to 06 January 2025
Cleaning	$556.30	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Missing light bulb and light shade	$28.22	Missing light bulb and light shade
Repairs	$1,666.51	Repairs
Net award	$895.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$895.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Reokore Maria Olive Thompson must pay [The landlord/s] $895.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[Property Manager] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 01 April 2021 and ended on 06 January 2025. On 12 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears to 06 January 2025 ($142.14), ii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish ($556.30), iii. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($207.00), iv. Failed to leave the lawns and grounds in a reasonable condition ($115.00), v. Is responsible for missing chattels (light bulb and light shade) ($10.24, $24.98), vi. Is responsible for damage to: a. The underfloor insulation ($771.49), b. Ranchslider ($770.00), c. Light shade ($24.98), d. Bedroom door ($37.25), e. Base of house ($24.57), f. Balustrade on deck ($29.40), g. Lounge room walls ($54.32).
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The property, constructed in the 1990’s, comprises of three-bedrooms, an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area, a bathroom, a separate toilet, and a laundry.
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) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced both pre and end of tenancy inspection reports which include photographs.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property, the lawns, and grounds (including damage caused by a dog kept at the property which dug holes in the lawn), and the carpet reasonably clean and or tidy. I am also satisfied that the tenant is responsible for a missing light bulb in the main living room.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The light shades are listed in the tenancy agreement as chattels. A shade in one of the bedrooms is missing. The landlord states that the light shades were new at the commencement of the tenancy. The missing shade was replaced like for like.
When awarding compensation for missing chattels, the Tribunal must also consider betterment. 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 betterment, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan.
Light shades in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of approximately 10 years. The shade was therefore halfway through its useful lifespan, I reduce the claim by 30% and award the landlord $17.98.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
The landlord has insurance for damage caused by tenants with an excess of $1,050.00 per claim.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, as is the case for missing chattels, the Tribunal must also consider 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 considering betterment and calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Damage
The landlord states that the property had been freshly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage occurring during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord conducted some of the repairs themselves and is seeking costs of materials only. For those repairs completed by contractors, the landlord has produced invoices. In each case, the Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison. Underfloor insulation
The tenant allowed their dog to access under the house. The photographs produced show that approximately two-thirds of the underfloor insulation has been pulled down and ripped. The insulation was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is consistent with having been caused by an animal. The contractor’s invoice notes that this is most likely the cause.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I make no reduction for betterment. The amount claimed is awarded. Ranchslider
A photograph of the aluminium ranchslider, taken at the end of the tenancy, which opens off the lounge, shows a large hole in the bottom left corner and bent or broken door handles. The landlord states that the glass in the door had been replaced at the commencement of the tenancy and that the door was otherwise in good condition. The landlord believes the damage was likely caused by the door being repeatedly slammed with force.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Ranchslider doors in rental properties have an estimated useful life span of between 30 and 50 years. The door handles are typically high use areas. The ranchslider appears to be an original feature and is likely more than thirty years old. Taking into account betterment, I reduce the claim by 5% and award the landlord $731.50. Light shades in bedrooms
The landlord has produced photographs showing a missing light shade in one bedroom, which I have dealt with as a missing chattel, and a cracked shade in another bedroom. The damaged shade is made of glass and appears a standard type. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord replaced the shade like for like.
Light shades in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of 10 years. As the shade was halfway through its useful lifespan, I reduce the claim by 30% and award the landlord $17.98. Bedroom door and lounge walls
The landlord has produced photographs of a door to one of the bedrooms with a medium sized impact hole, and lounge walls which have minor damage including scuffs, scratches, mismatched paint, and what the landlord describes as multiple stab marks made with a sharp object. The doors and walls had been freshly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord completed the repairs themselves and is claiming only the costs of the materials used. Only the affected areas were repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. Wooden deck and fibrolite base of house.
The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to two areas of the wooden deck. The damage is consistent with having been caused by an animal. The tenant kept a dog at the property. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the dog tethered to the deck. The landlord has also produced a photograph showing damage to a small section of the fibrolite base of the house near a drain.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord completed the repairs themselves and is claiming the material costs only. Only the affected areas were repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful in these proceedings, seeks and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148473 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148473 — Property damage

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