What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204633 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 5204633?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $352.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $712.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord; 8 Doors Replaced: $2,164.71 awarded to landlord; Lounge Window (3: $2,188.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Of Replaced Doors: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in bedro…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Door Handles (3: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $42.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204633?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204633?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11915354-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204633 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 5204633?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $352.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $712.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord; 8 Doors Replaced: $2,164.71 awarded to landlord; Lounge Window (3: $2,188.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Of Replaced Doors: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in bedro…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Door Handles (3: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $42.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204633?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204633?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11915354-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204633 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204633 — 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 5204633 — net $14,031.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/2/25	$5,250.00	Rent arrears to 21/2/25
Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom	$150.00	Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom
Repairs: lounge window (3	$2,188.00	Repairs: lounge window (3
Lock/key replacement	$352.95	Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$42.00	Replace smoke alarms
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$260.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: door handles (3	$255.00	Replace furnishings: door handles (3
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs to holes in walls	$712.00	Repairs to holes in walls
Repairs: 8 doors replaced	$2,164.71	Repairs: 8 doors replaced
Repairs: painting of replaced doors	$1,840.00	Repairs: painting of replaced doors
Compensation: time to do repairs	$1,950.00	time to do repairs
Net award	$14,031.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,031.66

Claims and awards for application 5204633 — net $14,031.66 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 21/2/25

Amount: $5,250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 21/2/25

Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom

Repairs: lounge window (3

Amount: $2,188.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: lounge window (3

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $352.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace smoke alarms

Amount: $42.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarms

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Ben Peniata, Michelle Peniata, Bernadette Peniata and Angela Doreen must pay [The landlord/s] $12,081.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by [redacted].
The tenants did not attend the hearing. They had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 February 2025 by tenant notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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) RTA.
The landlord has established in evidence that the tenants: a. did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, b. did not return the keys; and c. removed the smoke alarms.
I award the claims for cleaning and lawn mowing as sought as they are established in evidence and reasonable in the circumstances.
I dismiss the claim for carpet cleaning because, whilst a reasonable amount, this was a seven-year tenancy. A landlord must anticipate the need to clean carpets after such a lengthy duration.
Mr Shejwal argues that the tenants had a dog inside which was the primary reason the carpet needed cleaning. I do not accept that submission in these circumstances as he was aware that the tenants at times were allowing a dog into the home. A landlord has a duty pursuant to section 49 of the RTA to mitigate loss. Therefore, if a landlord is aware a dog is inside a premise and the tenant has not contracted to have a dog, they are required to take steps to mitigate any loss the dog may incur for the tenant. This might commence with formal requests, perhaps escalating to a 14-day notice to remedy, with the last option being an application to the Tribunal for assistance.
I have also reduced the smoke alarm claim. This is because although the landlord has established in evidence that the tenancy was provided with five smoke alarms and none remained at the end, smoke alarms have an expected 5-10 year lifespan in New Zealand residential tenancies. I am told these were photoelectric alarms and therefore were expected to operate for 10 years. This tenancy was 8 years. Accordingly, taking into account depreciation, I have awarded 20% of the claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage found at the end of the tenancy: i. Six missing door handles (the replacement of three are claimed for), ii. Eight doors damaged with holes, dents and extensive scratching, iii. Extensive scratching to three windows in the dining room, iv. Broken heater, v. Replaced carpet badly installed in a bedroom, and vi. A number of holes in walls.
To be successful in such a claim, 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 landlord’s insurance excess is $2,250 and the weekly rent was $650. The section 49B cap here therefore is $2,250 for careless damage.
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 landlord has established in evidence that all damage is in excess of fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the oral, photographic and documentary evidence of the following: i. The door handles were intentionally removed. This claim is therefore proven and ordered as sought. ii. The holes in the walls were likely caused intentionally given their size and extent. This claim is therefore proven and ordered as sought. iii. The extensive scratching to three windows in the dining room most likely occurred by a dog over a long period. The landlord says he was not usually allowed into this room at inspections otherwise he would have noticed it. So extensive was the damage that the three windows had to be replaced. This is therefore intentional damage, and as such the claim is proven and ordered as sought. iv. The heater does appear broken however the expected life span of a heater such as this in a New Zealand residential tenancy is approximately five years. This heater exceeds that time period therefore this claim is dismissed. v. The tenants replaced the carpet in a bedroom, and it has been installed incorrectly and requires replacement. I approve the claim as the actions were intentional but have reduced the amount ordered to allow for depreciation as the original carpet was approximately seven years old and the expected lifespan for such a carpet in a residential tenancy is 10 years. vi. Eight doors are extensively damaged. They have large cracks, dents and scratches. The extent of the damage indicates that this was intentional damage, accordingly the claim is ordered as sought. Lost rent
The landlord claims compensation for lost rent over part of the period they could not re-tenant the home. The repairs took several months given the extent of the damage and availability of trades.
The landlord seeks the equivalent of three weeks rent in reflection of their inability to re-tenant the home for a number of weeks.
I consider this claim reasonable in light of the damage left at the home. The tenants did not engage for the final inspection, nor return the keys. They therefore were likely anticipating the landlord’s response to the extensive damage which, on the landlord’s evidence, occurred over the last few months of the tenancy.
Accordingly, this claim is upheld. Guarantors
On 25 February 2020 the guarantors Bernadette Peniata and Angela Doreen provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that the guarantor would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations. Specifically:
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $12,081.66 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) RTA. Other orders
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved their application for 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 5204633 — net $14,031.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/2/25	$5,250.00	Rent arrears to 21/2/25
Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom	$150.00	Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom
Repairs: lounge window (3	$2,188.00	Repairs: lounge window (3
Lock/key replacement	$352.95	Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$42.00	Replace smoke alarms
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$260.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: door handles (3	$255.00	Replace furnishings: door handles (3
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs to holes in walls	$712.00	Repairs to holes in walls
Repairs: 8 doors replaced	$2,164.71	Repairs: 8 doors replaced
Repairs: painting of replaced doors	$1,840.00	Repairs: painting of replaced doors
Compensation: time to do repairs	$1,950.00	time to do repairs
Net award	$14,031.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,031.66

Claims and awards for application 5204633 — net $14,031.66 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 21/2/25

Amount: $5,250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 21/2/25

Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: carpet in bedroom

Repairs: lounge window (3

Amount: $2,188.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: lounge window (3

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $352.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace smoke alarms

Amount: $42.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarms

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Ben Peniata, Michelle Peniata, Bernadette Peniata and Angela Doreen must pay [The landlord/s] $12,081.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by [redacted].
The tenants did not attend the hearing. They had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 February 2025 by tenant notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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) RTA.
The landlord has established in evidence that the tenants: a. did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, b. did not return the keys; and c. removed the smoke alarms.
I award the claims for cleaning and lawn mowing as sought as they are established in evidence and reasonable in the circumstances.
I dismiss the claim for carpet cleaning because, whilst a reasonable amount, this was a seven-year tenancy. A landlord must anticipate the need to clean carpets after such a lengthy duration.
Mr Shejwal argues that the tenants had a dog inside which was the primary reason the carpet needed cleaning. I do not accept that submission in these circumstances as he was aware that the tenants at times were allowing a dog into the home. A landlord has a duty pursuant to section 49 of the RTA to mitigate loss. Therefore, if a landlord is aware a dog is inside a premise and the tenant has not contracted to have a dog, they are required to take steps to mitigate any loss the dog may incur for the tenant. This might commence with formal requests, perhaps escalating to a 14-day notice to remedy, with the last option being an application to the Tribunal for assistance.
I have also reduced the smoke alarm claim. This is because although the landlord has established in evidence that the tenancy was provided with five smoke alarms and none remained at the end, smoke alarms have an expected 5-10 year lifespan in New Zealand residential tenancies. I am told these were photoelectric alarms and therefore were expected to operate for 10 years. This tenancy was 8 years. Accordingly, taking into account depreciation, I have awarded 20% of the claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage found at the end of the tenancy: i. Six missing door handles (the replacement of three are claimed for), ii. Eight doors damaged with holes, dents and extensive scratching, iii. Extensive scratching to three windows in the dining room, iv. Broken heater, v. Replaced carpet badly installed in a bedroom, and vi. A number of holes in walls.
To be successful in such a claim, 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 landlord’s insurance excess is $2,250 and the weekly rent was $650. The section 49B cap here therefore is $2,250 for careless damage.
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 landlord has established in evidence that all damage is in excess of fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the oral, photographic and documentary evidence of the following: i. The door handles were intentionally removed. This claim is therefore proven and ordered as sought. ii. The holes in the walls were likely caused intentionally given their size and extent. This claim is therefore proven and ordered as sought. iii. The extensive scratching to three windows in the dining room most likely occurred by a dog over a long period. The landlord says he was not usually allowed into this room at inspections otherwise he would have noticed it. So extensive was the damage that the three windows had to be replaced. This is therefore intentional damage, and as such the claim is proven and ordered as sought. iv. The heater does appear broken however the expected life span of a heater such as this in a New Zealand residential tenancy is approximately five years. This heater exceeds that time period therefore this claim is dismissed. v. The tenants replaced the carpet in a bedroom, and it has been installed incorrectly and requires replacement. I approve the claim as the actions were intentional but have reduced the amount ordered to allow for depreciation as the original carpet was approximately seven years old and the expected lifespan for such a carpet in a residential tenancy is 10 years. vi. Eight doors are extensively damaged. They have large cracks, dents and scratches. The extent of the damage indicates that this was intentional damage, accordingly the claim is ordered as sought. Lost rent
The landlord claims compensation for lost rent over part of the period they could not re-tenant the home. The repairs took several months given the extent of the damage and availability of trades.
The landlord seeks the equivalent of three weeks rent in reflection of their inability to re-tenant the home for a number of weeks.
I consider this claim reasonable in light of the damage left at the home. The tenants did not engage for the final inspection, nor return the keys. They therefore were likely anticipating the landlord’s response to the extensive damage which, on the landlord’s evidence, occurred over the last few months of the tenancy.
Accordingly, this claim is upheld. Guarantors
On 25 February 2020 the guarantors Bernadette Peniata and Angela Doreen provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that the guarantor would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations. Specifically:
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $12,081.66 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) RTA. Other orders
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204633 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204633 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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