What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210513 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,814.64 (3346399-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5210513?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $164.64 awarded to landlord; Reinstallation Of Blinds In Bed 2: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210513?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12416135-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210513 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,814.64 (3346399-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5210513?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $164.64 awarded to landlord; Reinstallation Of Blinds In Bed 2: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210513?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12416135-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

168 Ballance Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210513 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210513. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damaged furnishings: Stains on dining room curtains	$200.00	Damaged furnishings: Stains on dining room curtains
Light bulbs/batteries	$164.64	Light bulbs/batteries
Reinstallation of blinds in Bed 2	$150.00	Reinstallation of blinds in Bed 2
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,814.64 (3346399-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Co-Lab Pm Limited T/A Ray White Gisborne & Wairoa Property Management As Agent For Robertson Family Trust: $541.64 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,273.00
Payment of the bond is apportioned as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 168 Ballance Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010 (the Premises) owned by the Robertson Family Trust (the Owner) and managed by Co-Lab Pm Limited T/A Ray White Gisborne & Wairoa Property Management (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for approximately 18 months.
The Landlord says after the tenancy ended in November 2024 the Landlord discovered the Tenant had caused damage to three sets of curtains in the Premises, uninstalled blinds in one bedroom and failed to replace lightbulbs.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of replacing curtains in the living room, dining room and main bedroom? b. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of reinstalling a blind in bedroom 2? c. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises with working lightbulbs? d. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’ filing fee?
On 16 September 2025, the Tenant and Property Manager attended the remote hearing. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of replacing curtains in the living room, dining room and main bedroom?
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. 1
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. 2
The Landlord produced the following written and photographic evidence: a. An in-going inspection dated 17 April 2023; b. An assessment of curtains by Guthrie Bowron dated 11 November 2024; and c. An out-going inspection date 16 December 2024.
Based on that evidence, the Landlord says the Tenant caused the following damage: a. Dining room curtains: pink marks and brown water stains; b. Master bedroom: rips in the curtain lining; c. Lounge: water mark on the curtain lining.
The Landlord could not say how old the curtains were, but accepted they were not new at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord made a claim on insurance, and produced evidence the claim was accepted with an excess of $500 payable for each of the three sets of curtains.
In relation to each set of curtains, the Tenant says: a. Dining room: the Tenant accepts she caused the pink stains, likely when she was using some pink paint. The Tenant produced photos she had taken on 25 April 2023 which show the brown water stains at the base and midway up the curtains were present at the start of the tenancy. b. Master bedroom: the Tenant says she noticed small slits in the lining of the curtain when she moved in, which she surmised were likely caused by sun damage as the windows where they were hung get a lot of sun. The Tenant did not photograph the small slits as they were at the start of the tenancy. 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 2 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. c. Lounge: the Tenant submits the photos of the lounge curtains in the in- going inspection do not show the curtain lining so it is not clear the mark was not there prior to her tenancy. The Tenant says she never noticed the watermark but says it was likely to be a result of the curtains touching the floor and the back of a wooden window seat which could have been the source of the moisture. The Tenant submits she did not do anything to cause the water damage.
I am satisfied the Tenant caused accidental damage to the dining room curtains in relation to the pink stains only. I am satisfied the brown water marks on the dining room curtains were present at the start of the tenancy, that is, they were not caused by the Tenant. Given the pink stains the Tenant caused only contributed to already water-stained curtains, I award only nominal compensation in the amount of $200.
As for the master bedroom, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused the damage alleged. In relation to the curtains in the master bedroom, the in-going inspection photos do not show the condition the curtain lining was in at the start of the tenancy, therefore, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was caused by the Tenant and/or was not simply fair wear and tear in curtains of their age. I am also satisfied it is more likely than not the tears in the curtain lining are a result of either age and/or sun damage.
In relation to the lounge curtains, I am also not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused the damage alleged. The in-going inspection recorded “small marks on backing” on the curtains in the lounge however the report did not include any photos of the curtain lining. It is therefore quite possible that the “small marks” recorded in the in-going report relate to the watermark now claimed as damage by the Tenant. I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was caused by the Tenant and/or was not fair wear and tear.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3 The Landlord says the Tenant had un-installed two sets of blinds in the Bedroom 2 and left the blinds in the bedroom wardrobe. The blinds required cleaning (which the Landlord said was provided by their tradesperson without charge) and re-installation. The Landlord referred to the in-going inspection showing the two sets of blinds in 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) and (v) of the Act. place, and the out-going inspection showing the blinds once removed from the wardrobe.
The Landlord seeks reimbursement of the cost of having the blinds re-installed and produced an invoice in support for $150.00.
The Tenant says she removed the blinds approximately four months before the end of the tenancy after one of them had slipped off their fixing. The Tenant says she noticed they had a bit of mould so decided not to hang them back up. The Tenant says it would have been a simple job to reinstall the blinds and disputes the cost charged by the Landlord’s tradesperson.
It is the Tenant’s obligation to leave the premises tidy and with all chattels as provided. In this case, the Tenant did not leave the blinds in place. Where a property is managed by professional property managers it is not uncommon that seemingly simple tasks are undertaken by professional tradespersons, and that that work comes at a cost. The Tenant could have avoided the cost by leaving the blinds installed before she exited the Premises. As she did not do so, the Landlord had to have them reinstalled and is entitled to seek reimbursement of those reasonable costs.
The amount ordered is proved.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises with working lightbulbs?

A landlord is responsible for ensuring a residential premise has working lightbulbs at the start of a tenancy and tenants are responsible for replacing lightbulbs as and when they expire.
The Landlord says that after the Tenant moved out, there were as many as 14 lightbulbs that were not working in the Premises. The Tenant was asked to replace these, and after some communications, purchased some replacement bulbs which she delivered to the Property Manager. The Property Manager arranged a tradesperson to install the lightbulbs provided by the Tenant, however the tradesperson said they were not the correct bulbs. Seven new bulbs were installed, and an invoice from the tradesperson for $164.64 was provided.
The Tenant says she was confused as she understood some of the lightbulbs were too high to be safely changed. The Tenant also said that some of the expired lightbulbs were in chandeliers which meant there was plenty of light without all bulbs working, and replacing each bulb seemed unnecessary. The Tenant says the tradesperson’s charge is too high and she could have sourced cheaper bulbs and installed them herself. The Tenant said she offered to do so after the tenancy ended, but the Landlord did not agree.
A landlord is not obligated to permit a tenant to re-enter the premises after a residential tenancy has ended. The obligation is on the tenant to leave the premises clean and tidy, and to leave items in working order, including all lights.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not replace at least 7 lightbulbs. The Landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost incurred in having those lightbulbs replaced by a tradesperson.
The amount ordered is proved. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’ filing fee?
As the Landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210513. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damaged furnishings: Stains on dining room curtains	$200.00	Damaged furnishings: Stains on dining room curtains
Light bulbs/batteries	$164.64	Light bulbs/batteries
Reinstallation of blinds in Bed 2	$150.00	Reinstallation of blinds in Bed 2
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,814.64 (3346399-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Co-Lab Pm Limited T/A Ray White Gisborne & Wairoa Property Management As Agent For Robertson Family Trust: $541.64 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,273.00
Payment of the bond is apportioned as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 168 Ballance Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010 (the Premises) owned by the Robertson Family Trust (the Owner) and managed by Co-Lab Pm Limited T/A Ray White Gisborne & Wairoa Property Management (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for approximately 18 months.
The Landlord says after the tenancy ended in November 2024 the Landlord discovered the Tenant had caused damage to three sets of curtains in the Premises, uninstalled blinds in one bedroom and failed to replace lightbulbs.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of replacing curtains in the living room, dining room and main bedroom? b. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of reinstalling a blind in bedroom 2? c. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises with working lightbulbs? d. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’ filing fee?
On 16 September 2025, the Tenant and Property Manager attended the remote hearing. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of replacing curtains in the living room, dining room and main bedroom?
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. 1
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. 2
The Landlord produced the following written and photographic evidence: a. An in-going inspection dated 17 April 2023; b. An assessment of curtains by Guthrie Bowron dated 11 November 2024; and c. An out-going inspection date 16 December 2024.
Based on that evidence, the Landlord says the Tenant caused the following damage: a. Dining room curtains: pink marks and brown water stains; b. Master bedroom: rips in the curtain lining; c. Lounge: water mark on the curtain lining.
The Landlord could not say how old the curtains were, but accepted they were not new at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord made a claim on insurance, and produced evidence the claim was accepted with an excess of $500 payable for each of the three sets of curtains.
In relation to each set of curtains, the Tenant says: a. Dining room: the Tenant accepts she caused the pink stains, likely when she was using some pink paint. The Tenant produced photos she had taken on 25 April 2023 which show the brown water stains at the base and midway up the curtains were present at the start of the tenancy. b. Master bedroom: the Tenant says she noticed small slits in the lining of the curtain when she moved in, which she surmised were likely caused by sun damage as the windows where they were hung get a lot of sun. The Tenant did not photograph the small slits as they were at the start of the tenancy. 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 2 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. c. Lounge: the Tenant submits the photos of the lounge curtains in the in- going inspection do not show the curtain lining so it is not clear the mark was not there prior to her tenancy. The Tenant says she never noticed the watermark but says it was likely to be a result of the curtains touching the floor and the back of a wooden window seat which could have been the source of the moisture. The Tenant submits she did not do anything to cause the water damage.
I am satisfied the Tenant caused accidental damage to the dining room curtains in relation to the pink stains only. I am satisfied the brown water marks on the dining room curtains were present at the start of the tenancy, that is, they were not caused by the Tenant. Given the pink stains the Tenant caused only contributed to already water-stained curtains, I award only nominal compensation in the amount of $200.
As for the master bedroom, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused the damage alleged. In relation to the curtains in the master bedroom, the in-going inspection photos do not show the condition the curtain lining was in at the start of the tenancy, therefore, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was caused by the Tenant and/or was not simply fair wear and tear in curtains of their age. I am also satisfied it is more likely than not the tears in the curtain lining are a result of either age and/or sun damage.
In relation to the lounge curtains, I am also not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused the damage alleged. The in-going inspection recorded “small marks on backing” on the curtains in the lounge however the report did not include any photos of the curtain lining. It is therefore quite possible that the “small marks” recorded in the in-going report relate to the watermark now claimed as damage by the Tenant. I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was caused by the Tenant and/or was not fair wear and tear.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3 The Landlord says the Tenant had un-installed two sets of blinds in the Bedroom 2 and left the blinds in the bedroom wardrobe. The blinds required cleaning (which the Landlord said was provided by their tradesperson without charge) and re-installation. The Landlord referred to the in-going inspection showing the two sets of blinds in 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) and (v) of the Act. place, and the out-going inspection showing the blinds once removed from the wardrobe.
The Landlord seeks reimbursement of the cost of having the blinds re-installed and produced an invoice in support for $150.00.
The Tenant says she removed the blinds approximately four months before the end of the tenancy after one of them had slipped off their fixing. The Tenant says she noticed they had a bit of mould so decided not to hang them back up. The Tenant says it would have been a simple job to reinstall the blinds and disputes the cost charged by the Landlord’s tradesperson.
It is the Tenant’s obligation to leave the premises tidy and with all chattels as provided. In this case, the Tenant did not leave the blinds in place. Where a property is managed by professional property managers it is not uncommon that seemingly simple tasks are undertaken by professional tradespersons, and that that work comes at a cost. The Tenant could have avoided the cost by leaving the blinds installed before she exited the Premises. As she did not do so, the Landlord had to have them reinstalled and is entitled to seek reimbursement of those reasonable costs.
The amount ordered is proved.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises with working lightbulbs?

A landlord is responsible for ensuring a residential premise has working lightbulbs at the start of a tenancy and tenants are responsible for replacing lightbulbs as and when they expire.
The Landlord says that after the Tenant moved out, there were as many as 14 lightbulbs that were not working in the Premises. The Tenant was asked to replace these, and after some communications, purchased some replacement bulbs which she delivered to the Property Manager. The Property Manager arranged a tradesperson to install the lightbulbs provided by the Tenant, however the tradesperson said they were not the correct bulbs. Seven new bulbs were installed, and an invoice from the tradesperson for $164.64 was provided.
The Tenant says she was confused as she understood some of the lightbulbs were too high to be safely changed. The Tenant also said that some of the expired lightbulbs were in chandeliers which meant there was plenty of light without all bulbs working, and replacing each bulb seemed unnecessary. The Tenant says the tradesperson’s charge is too high and she could have sourced cheaper bulbs and installed them herself. The Tenant said she offered to do so after the tenancy ended, but the Landlord did not agree.
A landlord is not obligated to permit a tenant to re-enter the premises after a residential tenancy has ended. The obligation is on the tenant to leave the premises clean and tidy, and to leave items in working order, including all lights.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not replace at least 7 lightbulbs. The Landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost incurred in having those lightbulbs replaced by a tradesperson.
The amount ordered is proved. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’ filing fee?
As the Landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210513 — Property damage at 168 Ballance Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210513 — Property damage at 168 Ballance Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of reinstalling a blind in bedroom 2?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises with working lightbulbs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of reinstalling a blind in bedroom 2?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises with working lightbulbs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.