Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5173056 — Property damage at 8A Wha Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204
Decided 11 Jul 2025 · Published 11 Jul 2025 · Application 5173056
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
- All other claims are dismissed. 3.
Reasons
- Ms Green and Ms McLean appeared on behalf of the landlord.The tenant did not appear.
- The landlord took over the management of the property on 12 October 2023.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy began on 26 September 2013.The tenant gave notice ending the tenancy on 18 February 2025.
- The tenancy ended on 26 February 2025 pursuant to a Tribunal order for rents arrears, and the bond was reimbursed, application 5067860.
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 left a lot of items at the premises and gave consent by text on Thursday 27 February 2025 for the landlord to dump anything that he left behind.
- The landlord provided evidence of furniture including a bed base, mattress, lounge suite, televisions, lounge furniture, kitchen table and chairs ,the contents of a garage and shed which contained furniture and pellets.
- The claim was for the cost to empty a 3m cubed bag that the tenant had filled but not emptied, and two general waste skip bins. There was also a penalty for one bin being overweight. I find the evidence supports this and award the amount claimed.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- 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.
- The landlord claimed for the replacement of the carpet throughout the 3- bedroom house. They said the landlord had insurance but did not provide a policy or statement. There was no confirmation of the insurance excess to be paid or that the tenant knew that there was an insurance excess.
- The landlord provided an outgoing condition report saying that they had no pre- inspection report as they took over management part way through a very long tenancy and those documents did not exist.
- There was no evidence of 14-day notices issued for carpet stains or cleaning and no evidence of conversations held where those concerns were raised.
- I find that the landlord has not proven that damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
- This claim is dismissed. Did the tenant refuse entry.
- [The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
- A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or to show prospective purchasers, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RAT.
- Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant emailed the landlord on 18 February 2025 ...we won’t be out tomorrow and I do not approve of any viewings of the property until we leave. The tenant left on 26 February 2025, 8 days later.
- The landlord said that no reason was given for this refusal.
- The Owners attended to the end of tenancy clean and repairs. The landlord said that because of the work required to bring the premises to renting standards it was not re-tenanted until 18 April 2025.
- The landlord also said that the advertising costs were refunded as the premises were in no condition to rent. The landlord did not bring prospective tenants through after the tenancy ended and by their own words it was not in a condition to re rent but that is not the claim here. The claim is the tenant withheld their consent unreasonably.
- Knowing that the tenancy was to end in a matter of days and therefore not allowing prospective tenants to view the premises I find is a reasonable excuse. I do not find it just to award exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA.
- This claim is dismissed.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded name suppression as requested.