What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5213091?

The tribunal order states: Dalephina Reweti must pay Brian Ross and Andrea Ross as trustees of Eliezer

How much money was awarded in case 5213091?

And For Garage Of: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,588.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5213091?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5213091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11819452-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5213091?

The tribunal order states: Dalephina Reweti must pay Brian Ross and Andrea Ross as trustees of Eliezer

How much money was awarded in case 5213091?

And For Garage Of: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,588.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5213091?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5213091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11819452-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Daysh Street, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5213091 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5213091 — net $4,885.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears for house of	$1,588.58	Rent arrears for house of
and for garage of	$305.00	and for garage of
Net award	$4,885.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,885.26

Order

Dalephina Reweti must pay Brian Ross and Andrea Ross as trustees of Eliezer Trust 1&2 $4,885.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

) $1,031.77 Replacing doors in east end bedroom and bathroom$758.84 Removing stickers and marker pen off rear bedroom door$48.88 Window repairs after tenancy ended$388.13 Window repairs during tenancy$764.99 Removing laminate off kitchen bench and cupboards$1,771.00 Rubbish removal$100.63 Cleaning$40.25 Replace smoke alarms$140.19 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$6,965.26 Less bond received$2,080.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,885.26

Reasons:

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Natasha and Andrea Ross. The tenant did not join the video hearing. The tenant is deaf, and two sign language interpreters attended the hearing to assist. The Tribunal sent messages to the tenant after the scheduled start time for the heraing by email and text to check whether she wished to attend and advised that if she did not reply, the hearing would proceed. The Tribunal delayed the hearing start time by 15 minutes. There was no response from the tenant. I am satisfied that she received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant signed the bond refund form after the tenancy ended releasing the bond of $2,080 in full to the landlord to cover arrears and damages.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy for the house ended on 10 February 2025 and a separate tenancy for an adjacent garage ended on 10 April 2025. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There was some minor cleaning required in the kitchen and an old mattress and cabinet that required disposal.
Five smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy and had to be replaced.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s excess is $650.
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 proved by reference to photos produced in evidence taken before and after the tenancy: a. Rear bedroom: Windowsill with engraved scratch marks; permanent marker pen drawings and stickers on bedroom door; four holes in wall and area where tape stuck to wall peeled off paint on removal; b. Residue backing from poster damage to north end wall to bottom of stairs; c. East end bedroom: Large hole in wall plastered poorly by tenant; four holes and a split in bedroom door; d. Large hole in bathroom door; e. Hole and paint peeling from poster removal in lounge wall; f. Broken window in lounge at end of tenancy and separate broken window during tenancy; g. Contact laminate paper applied to kitchen cupboards and benchtop.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which was likely intentional. The occasional accident would not have been intentional and would not have resulted in the extensive repair work. It is the extent of the damage that makes it intentional in the sense that the tenant failed to take reasonable action to avoid it.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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.
To remedy holes and marks on walls and windowsill involved the repair work and making good by painting the whole affected wall/windowsill areas. Paint work attracts depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that paintwork in a rental property is expected to last 10-12 years. The landlord was unable to say when exactly the premises were last painted but estimated approximately four years ago. The invoice for the repair work does not breakdown the repairs from painting. However, I consider some adjustment is justified to take depreciation for painting work into account. Give that there is no evidence to establish exactly when the walls were last repainted but acknowledging that the bulk of the work is to repair the damage, I allow 75% of the costs to account for depreciation.
In relation to replacement of the wooden hollow core doors, current depreciation guidelines estimate that they should last 20-30 years. The landlords said that the premises were constructed in the 1960s-70s, and the doors were likely original. Therefore, they should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, they would be expected to last a few more years. Therefore, I consider that the landlord is entitled to some contribution. I allow $207 for removal and disposal of each door and 15% of the balance of the claims to account for depreciation.
The contact laminate paper was intentionally applied by the tenant to the kitchen cupboards and bench. The landlord allowed the tenant to apply the contact provided she removed it and reinstated the bench and cupboards to their original condition. However, the tenant did not reinstate. The tenant had also assured the landlord that the contact was easily removeable. However, the landlord says it was very difficult to remove and it caused damage to the surfaces during removal that required touch up painting.
The damages awards after taking depreciation into account where applicable are summarised as follows: Item of repair/replacementClaim amountDepreciationAward
Indents & scratches on rear bedroom windowsill $244.3875%$183.28
Stickers and marks on rear bedroom door $48.88NA$48.88
Holes and tape marks on rear bedroom west end wall $295.8375%$221.88
Mark from poster removal on north end downstairs wall $245.8175%$184.36
Large hole poorly plastered by tenant in east end bedroom $295.8375%$221.88
Replace door in east end bedroom $1,356.4615% of $1,149.46 plus $207 $379.42
Replace bathroom door$1,356.4615% of $1,149.46 plus $207 $379.42
Hole from poster removal in lounge wall $293.8375%$220.37
Broken window during tenancy$764.99NA$764.99
Broken glass in lounge window$388.13NA$388.13
Remove peel & stick laminate applied to cupboards & benches by tenant $1771.00NA$1771.00
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5213091 — net $4,885.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears for house of	$1,588.58	Rent arrears for house of
and for garage of	$305.00	and for garage of
Net award	$4,885.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,885.26

Order

Dalephina Reweti must pay Brian Ross and Andrea Ross as trustees of Eliezer Trust 1&2 $4,885.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Reasons:

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Natasha and Andrea Ross. The tenant did not join the video hearing. The tenant is deaf, and two sign language interpreters attended the hearing to assist. The Tribunal sent messages to the tenant after the scheduled start time for the heraing by email and text to check whether she wished to attend and advised that if she did not reply, the hearing would proceed. The Tribunal delayed the hearing start time by 15 minutes. There was no response from the tenant. I am satisfied that she received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant signed the bond refund form after the tenancy ended releasing the bond of $2,080 in full to the landlord to cover arrears and damages.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy for the house ended on 10 February 2025 and a separate tenancy for an adjacent garage ended on 10 April 2025. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There was some minor cleaning required in the kitchen and an old mattress and cabinet that required disposal.
Five smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy and had to be replaced.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s excess is $650.
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 proved by reference to photos produced in evidence taken before and after the tenancy: a. Rear bedroom: Windowsill with engraved scratch marks; permanent marker pen drawings and stickers on bedroom door; four holes in wall and area where tape stuck to wall peeled off paint on removal; b. Residue backing from poster damage to north end wall to bottom of stairs; c. East end bedroom: Large hole in wall plastered poorly by tenant; four holes and a split in bedroom door; d. Large hole in bathroom door; e. Hole and paint peeling from poster removal in lounge wall; f. Broken window in lounge at end of tenancy and separate broken window during tenancy; g. Contact laminate paper applied to kitchen cupboards and benchtop.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which was likely intentional. The occasional accident would not have been intentional and would not have resulted in the extensive repair work. It is the extent of the damage that makes it intentional in the sense that the tenant failed to take reasonable action to avoid it.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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.
To remedy holes and marks on walls and windowsill involved the repair work and making good by painting the whole affected wall/windowsill areas. Paint work attracts depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that paintwork in a rental property is expected to last 10-12 years. The landlord was unable to say when exactly the premises were last painted but estimated approximately four years ago. The invoice for the repair work does not breakdown the repairs from painting. However, I consider some adjustment is justified to take depreciation for painting work into account. Give that there is no evidence to establish exactly when the walls were last repainted but acknowledging that the bulk of the work is to repair the damage, I allow 75% of the costs to account for depreciation.
In relation to replacement of the wooden hollow core doors, current depreciation guidelines estimate that they should last 20-30 years. The landlords said that the premises were constructed in the 1960s-70s, and the doors were likely original. Therefore, they should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, they would be expected to last a few more years. Therefore, I consider that the landlord is entitled to some contribution. I allow $207 for removal and disposal of each door and 15% of the balance of the claims to account for depreciation.
The contact laminate paper was intentionally applied by the tenant to the kitchen cupboards and bench. The landlord allowed the tenant to apply the contact provided she removed it and reinstated the bench and cupboards to their original condition. However, the tenant did not reinstate. The tenant had also assured the landlord that the contact was easily removeable. However, the landlord says it was very difficult to remove and it caused damage to the surfaces during removal that required touch up painting.
The damages awards after taking depreciation into account where applicable are summarised as follows: Item of repair/replacementClaim amountDepreciationAward
Indents & scratches on rear bedroom windowsill $244.3875%$183.28
Stickers and marks on rear bedroom door $48.88NA$48.88
Holes and tape marks on rear bedroom west end wall $295.8375%$221.88
Mark from poster removal on north end downstairs wall $245.8175%$184.36
Large hole poorly plastered by tenant in east end bedroom $295.8375%$221.88
Replace door in east end bedroom $1,356.4615% of $1,149.46 plus $207 $379.42
Replace bathroom door$1,356.4615% of $1,149.46 plus $207 $379.42
Hole from poster removal in lounge wall $293.8375%$220.37
Broken window during tenancy$764.99NA$764.99
Broken glass in lounge window$388.13NA$388.13
Remove peel & stick laminate applied to cupboards & benches by tenant $1771.00NA$1771.00
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5213091 — Rent arrears at 14 Daysh Street, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5213091 — Rent arrears at 14 Daysh Street, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions