What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223911?

The tribunal order states: Michael David Trengrove to pay McGrath and Associates Holdings Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5223911?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $419.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $214.29 awarded to landlord; Tidy Gardens: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223911?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11877181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223911?

The tribunal order states: Michael David Trengrove to pay McGrath and Associates Holdings Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5223911?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $419.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $214.29 awarded to landlord; Tidy Gardens: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223911?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11877181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Highfield Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223911 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

29 Highfield Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223911 — 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 5223911 — net $1,413.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 February 2025	$214.29	Rent arrears to 2 February 2025
Tidy gardens	$80.00	Tidy gardens
Repair bench top (insurance excess	$700.00	Repair bench top (insurance excess
Carpet damage	$419.00	Carpet damage
Net award	$1,413.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,413.29

Claims and awards for application 5223911 — net $1,413.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 February 2025

Amount: $214.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 February 2025

Tidy gardens

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Tidy gardens

Repair bench top (insurance excess

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair bench top (insurance excess

Carpet damage

Amount: $419.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet damage

Net award

Landlord $1,413.29

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,413.29

Dismissed claims

Lightbulbs — because light bulbs which have simply blown due to ordinary use is considered ‘damage’ due to fair wear and tear and not the responsibility of the tenant to re…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Michael David Trengrove to pay McGrath and Associates Holdings Limited $1,413.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay from the bond of $2,400.00 (6421439-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Mcgrath And Associates Holdings Limited: $1,413.29 Michael David Trengrove: $386.71

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McGrath represented the landlord.
The tenant, Mr Trengrove, applied for payment of the bond and the landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, and payment of the bond.
Whether Mr Trengrove is entitled to payment of all or part of the bond will depend on whether the landlord has established its claims against Mr Trengrove.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims rent of $214.29 being two days rent to 2 February 2025 and provided a rent summary in support. Mr Trengrove did not dispute the amount claimed.

Did the tenant comply with his 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, and return all keys and security devices section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claims the cost to clean the premises ($280.00), to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens ($380.00), and to replace two front door keys.
Mr Trengrove denies not leaving the premises reasonably clean and, other than Ms McGrath’s evidence that a “light clean” was required, there was no evidence (such as photographic evidence) to support that the premises were not left reasonably clean. Moreover, contractors entered the premises the day after the tenancy ended (and before the cleaning was done) to begin renovation work of the premises to prepare it for sale. It is therefore very likely that additional cleaning was required after that work had been completed. The claim for cleaning is therefore dismissed.
Mr Trengrove said that the lawns were mowed at the end of the tenancy and were left reasonably tidy and again there was no photographic evidence provided by the landlord to support the landlord’s claim that they were not. However, Mr Trengrove accepts that there were some weeds in the gardens at the end of the tenancy. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $80.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for weeding the gardens.
Mr Trengrove accepts that he only returned two of the three keys provided for the front door of the premises. However, the claim to replace the two keys is dismissed because Ms McGrath did not provide any evidence of the loss suffered as a result (such as a receipt or invoice to replace the keys).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, a landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following damage which occurred during the tenancy: • Carpets in a bedroom and the living room • Kitchen benchtop • Hall wall • Dishwasher door • Heat pump remote • Hall lightshade in the hall • Lightbulbs
The carpets were damaged by several stains in a bedroom, and a stain in the living room likely caused by over watering a pot plant.
I am satisfied that the stains are beyond fair wear and tear and were likely caused carelessly by Mr Trengrove or others at the premises with his permission. I am also satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the stains could not be removed by cleaning and the carpets required replacement.
The cost to replace the carpets was $958.00 for one room and $1,137.00 for the other (total $2,095.00) and the landlord claims the sum of $1,400.00 being two excesses that it was required to pay under its insurance policy.
The carpets were likely close to the end of their useful life and therefore betterment and depreciation needs to be taken into account. Ms McGrath said that the owner of the premises was uncertain of their age but they were not new when they purchased the premises 10 years ago. Carpets are expected to last approximately 10 to 15 years before requiring replacement. Thus, taking into account that the likely age of the carpets and their condition (the photographs, particularly the photographs of the bedroom carpet show areas where the carpet pile is missing) and Ms McGrath acceptance that the carpets were worn), I consider compensation assessed at 20% of the cost to replace the carpets to be reasonable to compensate the landlord for the carpet damage.
Mr Trengrove accepts that the damage to the bench top was caused by him or others there with his permission placing a hot pot on the bench. I consider this careless damage. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would ensure that the bench top was protected before placing a hot pot on it.
The damage was apparently repaired by the landlord’s insurer and the landlord claims the excess it was required to pay to repair under its insurance policy.
I therefore find Mr Trengrove liable for the amount claimed.
I dismiss the claim to repair a small ‘hole’ in the hall wall. No photograph was provided of the damage bur Mr Trengrove said that the hole was in fact a dent approximately 2cm in diameter and was caused by something bumping into the wall. Ms McGrath did not dispute his evidence. I am therefore not satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear that is damage caused by the ordinary use of the premises over a three and a half year tenancy. Moreover, even if the damage was considered to be beyond fair wear and tear, the landlord has not provided any evidence to support the cost to repair it which was likely done when the entire interior of the house was repainted as part of the renovation work.
The damage to the dishwasher door (dents) is dismissed because the landlord has not established that it has suffered any loss as a result of the damage. Ms McGrath did not provide any evidence to support the cost to repair the door and she was uncertain whether the door had been repaired before the property was sold.
The claim to repair the heat pump remote is dismissed for similar reasons. No evidence was provided to support that the cost to repair the remote or whether the remote had been repaired before the property was sold.
Mr Trengrove did not dispute that he removed the lightshade in the hall to install his own and did not reinstall the landlord’s lightshade at the end of the tenancy. Ms McGrath said that the owner had an electrician reinstall the lightshade when he was at the premises replacing lightbulbs, but she did not have evidence of the costs incurred to do so because it weas a “cash job” and no invoice or the like was issued. This claim is therefore dismissed because there is insufficient evidence to support the amount claimed to reinstall the light shade.
The claim to replace light bulbs is dismissed because light bulbs which have simply blown due to ordinary use is considered ‘damage’ due to fair wear and tear and not the responsibility of the tenant to replace. Ms McGrath said that she believes some bulbs were missing but she does could not say how many were missing and how many were simply blown.
Both parties have been partially successful in their respective claims. I therefore make no order for payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by each. In other words, each party is to bear the loss of the fee paid by them.

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 5223911 — net $1,413.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 February 2025	$214.29	Rent arrears to 2 February 2025
Tidy gardens	$80.00	Tidy gardens
Repair bench top (insurance excess	$700.00	Repair bench top (insurance excess
Carpet damage	$419.00	Carpet damage
Net award	$1,413.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,413.29

Claims and awards for application 5223911 — net $1,413.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 February 2025

Amount: $214.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 February 2025

Tidy gardens

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Tidy gardens

Repair bench top (insurance excess

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair bench top (insurance excess

Carpet damage

Amount: $419.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet damage

Net award

Landlord $1,413.29

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,413.29

Dismissed claims

Lightbulbs — because light bulbs which have simply blown due to ordinary use is considered ‘damage’ due to fair wear and tear and not the responsibility of the tenant to re…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Michael David Trengrove to pay McGrath and Associates Holdings Limited $1,413.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay from the bond of $2,400.00 (6421439-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Mcgrath And Associates Holdings Limited: $1,413.29 Michael David Trengrove: $386.71

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McGrath represented the landlord.
The tenant, Mr Trengrove, applied for payment of the bond and the landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, and payment of the bond.
Whether Mr Trengrove is entitled to payment of all or part of the bond will depend on whether the landlord has established its claims against Mr Trengrove.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims rent of $214.29 being two days rent to 2 February 2025 and provided a rent summary in support. Mr Trengrove did not dispute the amount claimed.

Did the tenant comply with his 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, and return all keys and security devices section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claims the cost to clean the premises ($280.00), to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens ($380.00), and to replace two front door keys.
Mr Trengrove denies not leaving the premises reasonably clean and, other than Ms McGrath’s evidence that a “light clean” was required, there was no evidence (such as photographic evidence) to support that the premises were not left reasonably clean. Moreover, contractors entered the premises the day after the tenancy ended (and before the cleaning was done) to begin renovation work of the premises to prepare it for sale. It is therefore very likely that additional cleaning was required after that work had been completed. The claim for cleaning is therefore dismissed.
Mr Trengrove said that the lawns were mowed at the end of the tenancy and were left reasonably tidy and again there was no photographic evidence provided by the landlord to support the landlord’s claim that they were not. However, Mr Trengrove accepts that there were some weeds in the gardens at the end of the tenancy. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $80.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for weeding the gardens.
Mr Trengrove accepts that he only returned two of the three keys provided for the front door of the premises. However, the claim to replace the two keys is dismissed because Ms McGrath did not provide any evidence of the loss suffered as a result (such as a receipt or invoice to replace the keys).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, a landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following damage which occurred during the tenancy: • Carpets in a bedroom and the living room • Kitchen benchtop • Hall wall • Dishwasher door • Heat pump remote • Hall lightshade in the hall • Lightbulbs
The carpets were damaged by several stains in a bedroom, and a stain in the living room likely caused by over watering a pot plant.
I am satisfied that the stains are beyond fair wear and tear and were likely caused carelessly by Mr Trengrove or others at the premises with his permission. I am also satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the stains could not be removed by cleaning and the carpets required replacement.
The cost to replace the carpets was $958.00 for one room and $1,137.00 for the other (total $2,095.00) and the landlord claims the sum of $1,400.00 being two excesses that it was required to pay under its insurance policy.
The carpets were likely close to the end of their useful life and therefore betterment and depreciation needs to be taken into account. Ms McGrath said that the owner of the premises was uncertain of their age but they were not new when they purchased the premises 10 years ago. Carpets are expected to last approximately 10 to 15 years before requiring replacement. Thus, taking into account that the likely age of the carpets and their condition (the photographs, particularly the photographs of the bedroom carpet show areas where the carpet pile is missing) and Ms McGrath acceptance that the carpets were worn), I consider compensation assessed at 20% of the cost to replace the carpets to be reasonable to compensate the landlord for the carpet damage.
Mr Trengrove accepts that the damage to the bench top was caused by him or others there with his permission placing a hot pot on the bench. I consider this careless damage. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would ensure that the bench top was protected before placing a hot pot on it.
The damage was apparently repaired by the landlord’s insurer and the landlord claims the excess it was required to pay to repair under its insurance policy.
I therefore find Mr Trengrove liable for the amount claimed.
I dismiss the claim to repair a small ‘hole’ in the hall wall. No photograph was provided of the damage bur Mr Trengrove said that the hole was in fact a dent approximately 2cm in diameter and was caused by something bumping into the wall. Ms McGrath did not dispute his evidence. I am therefore not satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear that is damage caused by the ordinary use of the premises over a three and a half year tenancy. Moreover, even if the damage was considered to be beyond fair wear and tear, the landlord has not provided any evidence to support the cost to repair it which was likely done when the entire interior of the house was repainted as part of the renovation work.
The damage to the dishwasher door (dents) is dismissed because the landlord has not established that it has suffered any loss as a result of the damage. Ms McGrath did not provide any evidence to support the cost to repair the door and she was uncertain whether the door had been repaired before the property was sold.
The claim to repair the heat pump remote is dismissed for similar reasons. No evidence was provided to support that the cost to repair the remote or whether the remote had been repaired before the property was sold.
Mr Trengrove did not dispute that he removed the lightshade in the hall to install his own and did not reinstall the landlord’s lightshade at the end of the tenancy. Ms McGrath said that the owner had an electrician reinstall the lightshade when he was at the premises replacing lightbulbs, but she did not have evidence of the costs incurred to do so because it weas a “cash job” and no invoice or the like was issued. This claim is therefore dismissed because there is insufficient evidence to support the amount claimed to reinstall the light shade.
The claim to replace light bulbs is dismissed because light bulbs which have simply blown due to ordinary use is considered ‘damage’ due to fair wear and tear and not the responsibility of the tenant to replace. Ms McGrath said that she believes some bulbs were missing but she does could not say how many were missing and how many were simply blown.
Both parties have been partially successful in their respective claims. I therefore make no order for payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by each. In other words, each party is to bear the loss of the fee paid by them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223911 — Property damage at 29 Highfield Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223911 — Property damage at 29 Highfield Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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