What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210672 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5210672?

Cleaning: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $191.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $604.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12528072-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5210672 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5210672?

Cleaning: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $191.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $604.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12528072-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, 147 Eversham Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210672 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210672 — net $1,700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2025 (agreed by consent	$640.00	Rent arrears to 7 March 2025 (agreed by consent
Replacement locks	$191.00	Replacement locks
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent	$105.00	Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent
Replacement bench top (depreciated	$604.90	Replacement bench top (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,700.00
Bond	$1,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,700.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,667.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,667.90 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $32.10

Reasons

A hearing was held on 18 September 2025 by teleconference. Both parties attended.
The tenancy began on 1 July 2023 and ended on 7 March 2025. Weekly rent was $495.00 and a bond of $1,700.00 was paid. While the parties originally signed a flat-sharing agreement dated 4 July 2023, I am satisfied that the arrangement is properly governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The evidence shows that the tenants had exclusive possession of a self-contained area, and the features of the arrangement are consistent with a tenancy as defined under section 2 of the RTA.
The landlord has applied for various costs following the end of the tenancy, including rent arrears, cleaning, carpet cleaning, lock replacement, replacement of a damaged kitchen bench top and refund of the bond. Rent Arrears and Carpet Cleaning
At the hearing, the parties agreed by consent that rent arrears of $640.00 and carpet cleaning costs of $105.00 were owing. These items are accordingly awarded. Lock Replacement
The landlord claims $191.00 for replacement locks, stating that only one of three sets of keys were returned on the day the tenancy ended, and the remaining keys were returned days later. Because of the lack of communication from the tenant and uncertainty around whether the tenants had vacated, the landlord had arranged a locksmith and changed the locks on 7 March 2025. The landlord stated that the incoming tenants were not willing to move in unless all locks had been changed for security reasons.
The tenants submitted that they returned the other two sets of keys a few days later and disputed the need to change the locks. However, it is the tenant’s obligation to return all keys at the end of the tenancy and landlords must provide and maintain locks to ensure the premises are reasonably secure. See sections 46 and 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. The tenants did not return all keys at the date the tenancy ended, being 7March 2025. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that due to the lack of communication and the imminent start of a new tenancy, it was reasonable to proceed with changing the locks. The landlord acted prudently in ensuring the property was secure for the incoming tenants. Therefore, the cost of $191.00 is awarded. Cleaning
The landlord claims $100.00 for cleaning, specifically due to faeces found in the shower at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that she had been unable to contact the tenants in the days prior to 7 March 2025 and had therefore arranged a cleaner to attend on the day. She testified that the cleaner refused to clean the shower due to faeces in the base, and the landlord personally undertook this work. Photographic evidence was submitted in support of this claim. The landlord said she did not charge for the rest of the cleaning work but sought compensation only for this aspect.
The tenants denied any such faeces were left, asserting they are clean people and would never do such a thing. They argued they had cleaning products on site and intended to return later that day for a 3:00 p.m. inspection but were told by the landlord at noon to leave the premises and that she would take care of the cleaning.
Under section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the RTA, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof rests with the landlord. I accept that the landlord had reason to believe the property had been vacated and that the need for urgent cleaning arose due to the presence of faeces in the shower. While the tenant disputes this, I find the landlord’s account credible and supported by her testimony and photographs. The sum of $100.00 is reasonable and awarded. Replacement of Bench Top
The landlord claims $1,037.00 to replace a damaged Formica kitchen bench top, alleging the tenants had cut directly on the surface causing permanent damage. The landlord says that at the time of the entry inspection in July 2023 there were no such marks. She also testified that the January 2024 inspection report noted visible cut marks, and this was discussed with the tenants at that time. The tenants signed and agreed to the inspection reports. The landlord further submitted that she informed the tenants in advance that they would be charged for the damage and provided evidence of quotes and invoices relating to the replacement work.
The tenants claim they took photos and video footage at the start of the tenancy that would show the bench top was already marked. However, no such evidence was provided at the hearing. The matter was briefly adjourned for the tenants to supply this material but no documentation was filed. I must therefore proceed on the evidence before the Tribunal.
Under section 40(2)(a) of the RTA, tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. Section 49B of the RTA limits tenant liability for careless damage to the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks’ rent, unless the damage was intentional. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the damage was not present at the beginning of the tenancy and appeared by January 2024. The number and nature of the cut marks support a finding that the damage was either intentional or arose from sustained careless use.
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must also consider depreciation. The bench top is five years old. A typical life expectancy for Formica benchtops is 12– 18 years. Using a straight-line depreciation model, the compensable amount falls between $604.90 (based on a 12-year life) and $748.95 (based on an 18-year life). I adopt the 12-year life in this case, noting that while the bench top was in serviceable condition at the start of the tenancy, there is no evidence it was in poor condition. On that basis, I award $604.90 for the replacement of the bench top. Filing fee
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenants are to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210672 — net $1,700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 March 2025 (agreed by consent	$640.00	Rent arrears to 7 March 2025 (agreed by consent
Replacement locks	$191.00	Replacement locks
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent	$105.00	Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent
Replacement bench top (depreciated	$604.90	Replacement bench top (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,700.00
Bond	$1,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,700.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,667.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,667.90 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $32.10

Reasons

A hearing was held on 18 September 2025 by teleconference. Both parties attended.
The tenancy began on 1 July 2023 and ended on 7 March 2025. Weekly rent was $495.00 and a bond of $1,700.00 was paid. While the parties originally signed a flat-sharing agreement dated 4 July 2023, I am satisfied that the arrangement is properly governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The evidence shows that the tenants had exclusive possession of a self-contained area, and the features of the arrangement are consistent with a tenancy as defined under section 2 of the RTA.
The landlord has applied for various costs following the end of the tenancy, including rent arrears, cleaning, carpet cleaning, lock replacement, replacement of a damaged kitchen bench top and refund of the bond. Rent Arrears and Carpet Cleaning
At the hearing, the parties agreed by consent that rent arrears of $640.00 and carpet cleaning costs of $105.00 were owing. These items are accordingly awarded. Lock Replacement
The landlord claims $191.00 for replacement locks, stating that only one of three sets of keys were returned on the day the tenancy ended, and the remaining keys were returned days later. Because of the lack of communication from the tenant and uncertainty around whether the tenants had vacated, the landlord had arranged a locksmith and changed the locks on 7 March 2025. The landlord stated that the incoming tenants were not willing to move in unless all locks had been changed for security reasons.
The tenants submitted that they returned the other two sets of keys a few days later and disputed the need to change the locks. However, it is the tenant’s obligation to return all keys at the end of the tenancy and landlords must provide and maintain locks to ensure the premises are reasonably secure. See sections 46 and 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. The tenants did not return all keys at the date the tenancy ended, being 7March 2025. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that due to the lack of communication and the imminent start of a new tenancy, it was reasonable to proceed with changing the locks. The landlord acted prudently in ensuring the property was secure for the incoming tenants. Therefore, the cost of $191.00 is awarded. Cleaning
The landlord claims $100.00 for cleaning, specifically due to faeces found in the shower at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that she had been unable to contact the tenants in the days prior to 7 March 2025 and had therefore arranged a cleaner to attend on the day. She testified that the cleaner refused to clean the shower due to faeces in the base, and the landlord personally undertook this work. Photographic evidence was submitted in support of this claim. The landlord said she did not charge for the rest of the cleaning work but sought compensation only for this aspect.
The tenants denied any such faeces were left, asserting they are clean people and would never do such a thing. They argued they had cleaning products on site and intended to return later that day for a 3:00 p.m. inspection but were told by the landlord at noon to leave the premises and that she would take care of the cleaning.
Under section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the RTA, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof rests with the landlord. I accept that the landlord had reason to believe the property had been vacated and that the need for urgent cleaning arose due to the presence of faeces in the shower. While the tenant disputes this, I find the landlord’s account credible and supported by her testimony and photographs. The sum of $100.00 is reasonable and awarded. Replacement of Bench Top
The landlord claims $1,037.00 to replace a damaged Formica kitchen bench top, alleging the tenants had cut directly on the surface causing permanent damage. The landlord says that at the time of the entry inspection in July 2023 there were no such marks. She also testified that the January 2024 inspection report noted visible cut marks, and this was discussed with the tenants at that time. The tenants signed and agreed to the inspection reports. The landlord further submitted that she informed the tenants in advance that they would be charged for the damage and provided evidence of quotes and invoices relating to the replacement work.
The tenants claim they took photos and video footage at the start of the tenancy that would show the bench top was already marked. However, no such evidence was provided at the hearing. The matter was briefly adjourned for the tenants to supply this material but no documentation was filed. I must therefore proceed on the evidence before the Tribunal.
Under section 40(2)(a) of the RTA, tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. Section 49B of the RTA limits tenant liability for careless damage to the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks’ rent, unless the damage was intentional. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the damage was not present at the beginning of the tenancy and appeared by January 2024. The number and nature of the cut marks support a finding that the damage was either intentional or arose from sustained careless use.
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must also consider depreciation. The bench top is five years old. A typical life expectancy for Formica benchtops is 12– 18 years. Using a straight-line depreciation model, the compensable amount falls between $604.90 (based on a 12-year life) and $748.95 (based on an 18-year life). I adopt the 12-year life in this case, noting that while the bench top was in serviceable condition at the start of the tenancy, there is no evidence it was in poor condition. On that basis, I award $604.90 for the replacement of the bench top. Filing fee
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenants are to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210672 — Property damage at Room 4, 147 Eversham Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210672 — Property damage at Room 4, 147 Eversham Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions