What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158655?

The tribunal order states: Jessie Isaacs must pay Sara Corleison $6,385.81 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5158655?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,192.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $301.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158655?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12244077-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158655?

The tribunal order states: Jessie Isaacs must pay Sara Corleison $6,385.81 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5158655?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,192.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $301.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158655?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12244077-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Wairau Road, Oakura 4314 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158655 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158655 — net $6,385.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 2	$7,192.43	Rent arrears 2
Rubbish removal	$301.38	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
08 Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	08 Filing fee reimbursement
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Net award	$6,385.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,385.81

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The Tribunal made an order for termination of this tenancy on 2 May 2025. The matter was adjourned to 13 June because the landlord had not submitted the rent summary in the correct format.

That was then done by 13 June but the landlord advised the Tribunal on 13 June about the possibility of making an insurance claim in regard to the rent. The matter was further adjourned for information about that to be put before the Tribunal. The matter also had to be adjourned because the landlord had put inadequate evidence before me in support of her claim for damages and compensation following the ending of the tenancy.

The landlord has provided rent records which show that $12,720 was owing for rent as at the date of termination of the tenancy.

The landlord should not however be entitled to recovery of any part of this sum twice. For that reason, I need to deduct the amount which is to be recovered from the landlord’s insurer.

The landlord gave evidence that in the event she is able to recover compensation for damage caused to the property by the tenant over and above the amount of the bond (and against the full amount of the bond), she will be able to recover 8 weeks rent from her insurer.

If the amount I order in favour of the tenant is less than the bond, then the amount she is able to recover from the insurer is 8 weeks, less the amount by which the damages are lower that the full amount of the bond.

By “damages” here (to ensure this is clear), the landlord advises me she means damage other than loss of rent.

By way of example, if I order the damages for repairs to the property, cleaning and the like in the sum of $2385 (the amount the landlord say is the bond amount) to be paid from the bond, then the landlord will receive a sum equivalent to 8 weeks rent from her insurer ($6360). If, however, I order the sum of $2000 to be paid from the bond for such damages, then the landlord receives $5975.

Therefore, in order to work out what rent I am prepared to order in favour of the landlord, I need to first calculate what sum if any should be paid by the tenant to the landlord for damages caused by way of cleaning (lawns and inside the house), repairs and rubbish removal.

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.

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA 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; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean inside and outside. The landlord also claims that smoke alarm units were removed. The landlord claims that significant rubbish was left behind.

The burden of proof in such applications is on the landlord. It is to the civil standard of balance of probabilities. Photographs and other documents can be an important part of corroborating a claim and proving it.

Photographic evidence was supplied, but there were not a large amount of photographs. There were inadequate photographs showing the condition of the exterior of the property at the commencement of the tenancy, inadequate photographs showing the areas in need of cleaning at the end of the tenancy, and inadequate photographs showing the precise arears of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy which the landlord says were damaged by this tenant.

I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that the premises was in a good condition at the commencement of the tenancy but the usual course would be to have a large number of photographic evidence corroborating the claim.

I accept there were areas where further attention was required to the carpet but this did not warrant a full carpet clean.

I am prepared to order the following amounts: i. $400 for cleaning ii. Reimbursement of the tip fees, being: $301.38 iii. $400 for lawn and garden tidy up. As noted, there was inadequate evidence as to the condition of the outside at the commencement of the tenancy. Further, I do not consider it appropriate to order bark chip replacement. That falls into the category of improvement and renovation of the property and well exceeds a tenant’s obligation to keep gardens reasonably tidy. I do not consider it appropriate to order compensation for oil for the lawn mower. I consider that to be included in the $400 I have ordered. iv. I am not prepared to make any order for the smoke alarms, as I did not have evidence of these alarms being present at the outset of the tenancy, and nor is there information about how old they were. These items have a limited lifespan anyway.

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.

I consider there were a number of areas inside the property that needed paint touch ups. I consider many of those are just general wear and tear.

I accept the tenant has deliberately caused some damage however by all the hooks.

I am prepared to order $250 for supplies and labour to repair the interior. I do not consider it appropriate to award compensation to purchase a ladder, or for cleaning products. This is because I have separately ordered compensation for cleaning above. The ladder is an item that the landlord now has the ongoing benefit of.

I consider the curtain rail was deliberately broken and order reimbursement of those costs, being $17.60 and $148 to Spotlight ($165.60). This includes the curtains.

I reimburse the landlord for the replacement of the toilet seat of $34.48 which was deliberately damaged by the tenant.

I have taken into account 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. The rent

The bond amount is to be reimbursed to the landlord. I have ordered a total of $1552.46 for damages as defined above. According to the landlord’s formula, she will receive $5527.46 by way of rent reimbursement from her insurer. I therefore deduct this sum from the amount currently owing for rent, producing a grand total of $7192.54. This sum must be paid by the tenant to the landlord by way of rent.

Because Sara Corleison has succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158655 — net $6,385.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 2	$7,192.43	Rent arrears 2
Rubbish removal	$301.38	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
08 Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	08 Filing fee reimbursement
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Net award	$6,385.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,385.81

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The Tribunal made an order for termination of this tenancy on 2 May 2025. The matter was adjourned to 13 June because the landlord had not submitted the rent summary in the correct format.

The landlord has provided rent records which show that $12,720 was owing for rent as at the date of termination of the tenancy.

The landlord should not however be entitled to recovery of any part of this sum twice. For that reason, I need to deduct the amount which is to be recovered from the landlord’s insurer.

By “damages” here (to ensure this is clear), the landlord advises me she means damage other than loss of rent.

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

I accept there were areas where further attention was required to the carpet but this did not warrant a full carpet clean.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I consider there were a number of areas inside the property that needed paint touch ups. I consider many of those are just general wear and tear.

I accept the tenant has deliberately caused some damage however by all the hooks.

I consider the curtain rail was deliberately broken and order reimbursement of those costs, being $17.60 and $148 to Spotlight ($165.60). This includes the curtains.

I reimburse the landlord for the replacement of the toilet seat of $34.48 which was deliberately damaged by the tenant.

Because Sara Corleison has succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158655 — Rent arrears at 54 Wairau Road, Oakura 4314

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158655 — Rent arrears at 54 Wairau Road, Oakura 4314

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