What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5199551 about?

The tribunal order states: Rogan James Ross, Sam Kearns and Josh Winstone Moroney to pay

How much money was awarded in case 5199551?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199551?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12434810-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5199551 about?

The tribunal order states: Rogan James Ross, Sam Kearns and Josh Winstone Moroney to pay

How much money was awarded in case 5199551?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199551?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12434810-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 103 Mandeville Street, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5199551 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5199551 — net $1,030.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$750.00	Repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,030.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,030.00

Rogan James Ross, Sam Kearns and Josh Winstone Moroney to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Yi Li & Chunming Zhao $1,030.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5937318-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Yi Li & Chunming Zhao: $1,030.00 Rogan James Ross, Sam Kearns and Josh Winstone Moroney: $1,570.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 August 2025.

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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the carpets were stained.

While the landlord has sought $220.00 plus GST for cleaning costs and $200 plus GST for carpet cleaning costs, I have moderated those costs accordingly based on the tenant’s obligation to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition only.

Only the amounts ordered as set out in table above 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.

The walls and ceiling were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage despite the tenant having engaged a painter to undertake spot repairs and painting work.

The work undertaken by the tenant’s tradesperson was unprofessional and unacceptable. I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to have further repair work done to the walls and the ceiling of the property.

The landlord was able to claim insurance for the damage subject to an excess of $750.00 against the total wall and painting repair bill of $3,700.00.

The tenant's liability is accordingly limited to the lesser of the insurance excess of $750.00 only.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Because Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Yi Li & Chunming Zhao has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Consequently, the bond is disbursed to the parties as set out in the table above.

Note: I have reissued this order today to include all the tenants’ names. Sam Kearns’ name was missing from the order issued on 14 August 2025. J Tam Reissued on 19 September 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5199551 — net $1,030.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$750.00	Repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,030.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,030.00

Order

Rogan James Ross, Sam Kearns and Josh Winstone Moroney to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Yi Li & Chunming Zhao $1,030.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5937318-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Yi Li & Chunming Zhao: $1,030.00 Rogan James Ross, Sam Kearns and Josh Winstone Moroney: $1,570.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 August 2025.
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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the carpets were stained.
While the landlord has sought $220.00 plus GST for cleaning costs and $200 plus GST for carpet cleaning costs, I have moderated those costs accordingly based on the tenant’s obligation to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition only.
Only the amounts ordered as set out in table above 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.
The walls and ceiling were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage despite the tenant having engaged a painter to undertake spot repairs and painting work.
The work undertaken by the tenant’s tradesperson was unprofessional and unacceptable. I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to have further repair work done to the walls and the ceiling of the property.
The landlord was able to claim insurance for the damage subject to an excess of $750.00 against the total wall and painting repair bill of $3,700.00.
The tenant's liability is accordingly limited to the lesser of the insurance excess of $750.00 only.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
Because Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Yi Li & Chunming Zhao has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Consequently, the bond is disbursed to the parties as set out in the table above.
Note: I have reissued this order today to include all the tenants’ names. Sam Kearns’ name was missing from the order issued on 14 August 2025. J Tam Reissued on 19 September 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199551 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 103 Mandeville Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199551 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 103 Mandeville Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions