What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5190251 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 5190251?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $53.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: reimburse plumbing and…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $556.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $282.86 awarded to tenant; Internal Walls: $532.46 awarded to landlord; To Carport Walls: $2,414.87 awarded to landlord; Replace Rimu Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11987918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5190251 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 5190251?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $53.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: reimburse plumbing and…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $556.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $282.86 awarded to tenant; Internal Walls: $532.46 awarded to landlord; To Carport Walls: $2,414.87 awarded to landlord; Replace Rimu Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11987918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

314 Kawautahi Road, Owhango, RD 1, Owhango 3989 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190251 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

314 Kawautahi Road, Owhango, RD 1, Owhango 3989 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190251 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190251 — net $2,034.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$556.83		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to carport walls	$2,414.87		Repairs: to carport walls
Repairs: internal walls	$532.46		Repairs: internal walls
Carpet Cleaning	$80.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: fireplace	$53.00		Cleaning: fireplace
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Replace rimu doors	$1,000.00		Replace rimu doors
Rent credit		$282.86	Rent credit
Compensation: reimburse plumbing and water charges		$350.00	reimburse plumbing and water charges
Total award	$4,987.16	$632.86
Net award	$2,034.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,034.30

Claims and awards for application 5190251 — net $2,034.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $556.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: to carport walls

Amount: $2,414.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to carport walls

Repairs: internal walls

Amount: $532.46
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: internal walls

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning: fireplace

Amount: $53.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: fireplace

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,134.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16/5/2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the rent credit owing to the tenant the end of the tenancy. As noted in the interim order issued on 9/4/2025 the rent credit takes account of the rent reduction awarded by way of compensation for the sewerage issues that arose at the end of the tenancy. Who is liable for the cost of water delivered to the tenancy to refill water tanks and plumbing costs to resolve air locks when the water tanks emptied.
The property is at a rural address and the water is provided by two water tanks, one concrete tank with a 9,000-litre capacity and the other is made of polyurethane and holds 29,000 litres of water. Both are supplied with rainwater only.
The tenant said that she understood at the beginning of the tenancy that the tanks were fed by spring water. The property manager who let the premises gave affirmed evidence that she did not tell the tenant that as she is not a “farm girl” and she had no idea how the tanks were filled, until discussing this with the owner when the tenant ran out of water the first time.
The tenancy agreement is silent beyond the standard reference to the tenant being responsible for paying the cost of water used at the premises.
It was a dry Summer, and the water tanks ran dry for the first time in early December 2024. Then again in late January and for a final time in April 2025. The cost of each refill is $350. The tenant has paid each invoice. Total $1,050.
There is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s submission that the property manager misrepresented how the tanks would be filled in any way, and therefore the landlord should reimburse her for some of the cost of refilling the tanks.
The tenant’s alternative submission was that the concrete tank was leaking and that contributed to the water loss, and she should not have to pay for water caused by the leak.
The landlord said that prior to the tenancy commencing some adhesive was applied to a visible crack in the concrete as a “preventative maintenance” measure, noting that concrete tanks often develop cracks.
When the tanks needed to be refilled in early December the property owner applied more adhesive as “weeping” from the crack was visible. The tenant said the “weeping was more a continuous dripping. The landlord reapplied adhesive for a third time.
It is likely some, but not a lot of water the tenant has paid for leaked, the cost of filling the concrete tank was only around one third of the total cost and it is likely the water loss caused by the crack was only a small portion of this. I attribute $170 to the water loss caused by the crack leaking and order that the landlord is to reimburse the tenant this cost.
The final issue with respect to the water tanks is that each time the tanks ran dry an air lock developed and a plumber was required to attend. The landlord has paid for the first two invoices and seeks reimbursement.
The evidence was clear that there was no way the tenant could have known that the water had run out. While the landlord said the pressure may have noticeably reduced, the tenant said this was not the case and the first she knew of the issue was when the tap did not work.
I decline to order that the tenant reimburse the landlord for the cost of the plumber attending. I accept that she did not cause the air lock and there were no reasonable steps she could have taken to avoid that cost. Apparently newer water tanks have an alarm or alert, which might make that finding different, but this one did not.
On the evidence available the tenant has not caused the call out fee (either by her actions or omissions) and in the absence of any breach of s 40(1)(d) which would require her to notify the landlord of the issue, she is not liable for the cost.
It follows that the landlord is to reimburse the tenant for the final call out fee, which is $180, that she is due to pay next week. That amount is deduced from the total amount owing. The tenant is therefore to pay that plumbing bill as she indicated she would.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The carpets were stained and required professional cleaning, the oven and stove were dirty, and the firebox required emptying and cleaning. Beyond that the claim for general cleaning is reduced to reflect the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard that the RTA states applies. This does not extend to a tenant being required to clean every mark from every surface, including windows and walls. The photographs provided show that many surfaces required cleaning to return them to this standard.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the walls of the carport were extensively damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the pre-inspection photographs provided show the damage was not preexisting and must have occurred during the tenancy.
While the tenant says she did not cause the damage, she has not disproved liability for the damage. As noted, during the hearing, while the tenant says she left the premises on 2 May, she did not let the landlord know or request an early end to the tenancy, which therefore did not end until 11 May in accordance with the previous Tribunal order. The relevance of that finding is that she is responsible for damage that occurred up until 11 May. The landlord took the end of tenancy photographs on 11 May, and they clearly show the extensive damage to the carport. The landlord also said that the property was locked and he saw no evidence of a break in (such as a broken window) or that anyone had broken in and squatted there.
The amounts ordered to repair the damage is therefore proved.
The tenant is also liable for the cost of replacing two rimu doors that could not be repaired, and for repairs to walls in the bedrooms, living room and bottom of the stairwell. The landlord does not have insurance for tenant damage and the cost of repairs (for the replacement of the doors and walls as separate claims) is less than 4 weeks rent.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when calculating the amount ordered for replacement of the rimu doors. 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 pre-tenancy photos show some wear and tear to the doors so an allowance is made.
I have not depreciated the cost of repairing the carport as I accept that the hardiplanks required for the repairs have a lifespan of 50 years. The boards were installed in 2015 so had a further expected 40 years useful life. Depreciation is not therefore relevant to that claim.
Both parties paid filing fees and both have requested name suppression.
As both parties have partly succeeded with their claims I decline to direct that one must reimburse the other for the filing fee they each paid and I approve both parties requests for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190251 — net $2,034.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$556.83		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to carport walls	$2,414.87		Repairs: to carport walls
Repairs: internal walls	$532.46		Repairs: internal walls
Carpet Cleaning	$80.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: fireplace	$53.00		Cleaning: fireplace
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Replace rimu doors	$1,000.00		Replace rimu doors
Rent credit		$282.86	Rent credit
Compensation: reimburse plumbing and water charges		$350.00	reimburse plumbing and water charges
Total award	$4,987.16	$632.86
Net award	$2,034.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,034.30

Claims and awards for application 5190251 — net $2,034.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $556.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: to carport walls

Amount: $2,414.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to carport walls

Repairs: internal walls

Amount: $532.46
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: internal walls

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning: fireplace

Amount: $53.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: fireplace

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,134.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16/5/2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the rent credit owing to the tenant the end of the tenancy. As noted in the interim order issued on 9/4/2025 the rent credit takes account of the rent reduction awarded by way of compensation for the sewerage issues that arose at the end of the tenancy. Who is liable for the cost of water delivered to the tenancy to refill water tanks and plumbing costs to resolve air locks when the water tanks emptied.
The property is at a rural address and the water is provided by two water tanks, one concrete tank with a 9,000-litre capacity and the other is made of polyurethane and holds 29,000 litres of water. Both are supplied with rainwater only.
The tenant said that she understood at the beginning of the tenancy that the tanks were fed by spring water. The property manager who let the premises gave affirmed evidence that she did not tell the tenant that as she is not a “farm girl” and she had no idea how the tanks were filled, until discussing this with the owner when the tenant ran out of water the first time.
The tenancy agreement is silent beyond the standard reference to the tenant being responsible for paying the cost of water used at the premises.
It was a dry Summer, and the water tanks ran dry for the first time in early December 2024. Then again in late January and for a final time in April 2025. The cost of each refill is $350. The tenant has paid each invoice. Total $1,050.
There is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s submission that the property manager misrepresented how the tanks would be filled in any way, and therefore the landlord should reimburse her for some of the cost of refilling the tanks.
The tenant’s alternative submission was that the concrete tank was leaking and that contributed to the water loss, and she should not have to pay for water caused by the leak.
The landlord said that prior to the tenancy commencing some adhesive was applied to a visible crack in the concrete as a “preventative maintenance” measure, noting that concrete tanks often develop cracks.
When the tanks needed to be refilled in early December the property owner applied more adhesive as “weeping” from the crack was visible. The tenant said the “weeping was more a continuous dripping. The landlord reapplied adhesive for a third time.
It is likely some, but not a lot of water the tenant has paid for leaked, the cost of filling the concrete tank was only around one third of the total cost and it is likely the water loss caused by the crack was only a small portion of this. I attribute $170 to the water loss caused by the crack leaking and order that the landlord is to reimburse the tenant this cost.
The final issue with respect to the water tanks is that each time the tanks ran dry an air lock developed and a plumber was required to attend. The landlord has paid for the first two invoices and seeks reimbursement.
The evidence was clear that there was no way the tenant could have known that the water had run out. While the landlord said the pressure may have noticeably reduced, the tenant said this was not the case and the first she knew of the issue was when the tap did not work.
I decline to order that the tenant reimburse the landlord for the cost of the plumber attending. I accept that she did not cause the air lock and there were no reasonable steps she could have taken to avoid that cost. Apparently newer water tanks have an alarm or alert, which might make that finding different, but this one did not.
On the evidence available the tenant has not caused the call out fee (either by her actions or omissions) and in the absence of any breach of s 40(1)(d) which would require her to notify the landlord of the issue, she is not liable for the cost.
It follows that the landlord is to reimburse the tenant for the final call out fee, which is $180, that she is due to pay next week. That amount is deduced from the total amount owing. The tenant is therefore to pay that plumbing bill as she indicated she would.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The carpets were stained and required professional cleaning, the oven and stove were dirty, and the firebox required emptying and cleaning. Beyond that the claim for general cleaning is reduced to reflect the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard that the RTA states applies. This does not extend to a tenant being required to clean every mark from every surface, including windows and walls. The photographs provided show that many surfaces required cleaning to return them to this standard.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the walls of the carport were extensively damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the pre-inspection photographs provided show the damage was not preexisting and must have occurred during the tenancy.
While the tenant says she did not cause the damage, she has not disproved liability for the damage. As noted, during the hearing, while the tenant says she left the premises on 2 May, she did not let the landlord know or request an early end to the tenancy, which therefore did not end until 11 May in accordance with the previous Tribunal order. The relevance of that finding is that she is responsible for damage that occurred up until 11 May. The landlord took the end of tenancy photographs on 11 May, and they clearly show the extensive damage to the carport. The landlord also said that the property was locked and he saw no evidence of a break in (such as a broken window) or that anyone had broken in and squatted there.
The amounts ordered to repair the damage is therefore proved.
The tenant is also liable for the cost of replacing two rimu doors that could not be repaired, and for repairs to walls in the bedrooms, living room and bottom of the stairwell. The landlord does not have insurance for tenant damage and the cost of repairs (for the replacement of the doors and walls as separate claims) is less than 4 weeks rent.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when calculating the amount ordered for replacement of the rimu doors. 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 pre-tenancy photos show some wear and tear to the doors so an allowance is made.
I have not depreciated the cost of repairing the carport as I accept that the hardiplanks required for the repairs have a lifespan of 50 years. The boards were installed in 2015 so had a further expected 40 years useful life. Depreciation is not therefore relevant to that claim.
Both parties paid filing fees and both have requested name suppression.
As both parties have partly succeeded with their claims I decline to direct that one must reimburse the other for the filing fee they each paid and I approve both parties requests for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190251 — Property damage at 314 Kawautahi Road, Owhango, RD 1, Owhango 3989

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190251 — Property damage at 314 Kawautahi Road, Owhango, RD 1, Owhango 3989

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