What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229451?

The tribunal order states: Rosemarie Pillia and Tifa Avia to pay Christchurch Property Limited $903.92

How much money was awarded in case 5229451?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $132.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $92.57 awarded to landlord; Lino Materials Only (By Consent: $181.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $293.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229451?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11780588-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229451?

The tribunal order states: Rosemarie Pillia and Tifa Avia to pay Christchurch Property Limited $903.92

How much money was awarded in case 5229451?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $132.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $92.57 awarded to landlord; Lino Materials Only (By Consent: $181.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $293.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229451?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11780588-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 George Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229451 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229451 — net $903.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (by consent	$92.57	Rent arrears (by consent
Previous order application 5037028 dated 11 December 2024 (filing fee for previous application by consent	$27.00	Previous order application 5037028 dated 11 December 2024 (filing fee for previous application by consent
Water rates (by consent	$293.80	Water rates (by consent
Cleaning (by consent	$150.00	Cleaning (by consent
Window repairs (by consent	$132.25	Window repairs (by consent
Repairs: Lino materials only (by consent	$181.30	Repairs: Lino materials only (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement (this application	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement (this application
Net award	$903.92
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$903.92

Order

Rosemarie Pillia and Tifa Avia to pay Christchurch Property Limited $903.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5198557-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Christchurch Property Limited: $903.92 Rosemarie Pillia and Tifa Avia: $1,696.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Catanach attended on behalf of the landlord.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The parties had previously attended a hearing (5037028) where the amount owed for rent arears was agreed and the landlord was awarded the filing fee.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The tenant has made payments of rent since the last hearing and has also paid the majority of the arears.
The parties agreed on the amount of arrears still outstanding, and that amount is ordered together with the filing fee for application 5037028.
The tenant was unaware of the water rates invoice ($293.80) until after the tenancy ended but accepted responsibility for the amount.
The above amounts are ordered by consent.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and accepted responsibility for the amount claimed for additional cleaning, being $150.00.
The landlord claimed $300.00 for professional carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that the carpets smelt of dog and needed to be professionally cleaned.
The tenancy agreement included a clause allowing one dog to live at the property. An additional clause required that the carpets be cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
A tenant is not obliged to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy unless that is required to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard as required by the Act.
The outgoing report noted that the carpets throughout had not been professionally cleaned but did not refer to marks or stains on the carpets or to any smell.
The tenant said that that the dog stayed outside and that the carpets smelt the same at the beginning of the tenancy as they did at the end.
The landlord denied this and gave evidence that the carpets had been professionally cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy.
Given the lack of evidence as to whether the carpets required professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy to be brought to a reasonably clean and tidy standard, I cannot award the carpet cleaning costs and that claim is dismissed.
The amount ordered, being $150.00 for cleaning is ordered by consent.

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 under 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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: a. Damage to a window latch. b. Damage to the kitchen lino. c. Damage to an area of wall in the lounge.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepts responsibility for the damage to the window latch ($132.25) and the lino ($181.30).
Those amounts are ordered by consent.
The tenant denies liability for the costs to repair the damage to the lounge wall.
There is no dispute that the wall was damaged and that the tenant had made partial repairs just prior to leaving the tenancy.
The tenant says that she was clearing the wall in preparation for the end of the tenancy, and it collapsed inward under normal cleaning pressure.
The tenant asked her brother (a tradesperson), to make repairs and during that (partial) repair it was discovered that there had been previous damage to this area which had been repaired in non-professional way. The tenant said that it as this prior repair that caused the wall damage under normal cleaning.
The landlord accepted that there were areas of the house that had been damaged by prior tenants and were repaired before this tenancy began but said that this was not one of those areas.
The tenant showed photographs to the landlord during the hearing to support her claim that there was earlier damage in this location. The landlord accepted that there had been a previous repair but still claimed that the damage caused by this tenant must be more than fair wear and tear and that the tenant should pay the costs of plastering and painting required to complete the report that the tenant had started.
After the hearing, the tenant emailed these same photographs to the Tribunal.
It is clear from the photographs that a very poor repair job (involving cardboard and filler spray) had been completed to conceal previous damage.
The tenant is not liable for the cost of completing this repair as they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The claim for repairs to the wall is dismissed.
The amounts ordered, being $132.25 and $181.30 as specified above, are ordered by consent. Filing fee
As Christchurch Property Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229451 — net $903.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (by consent	$92.57	Rent arrears (by consent
Previous order application 5037028 dated 11 December 2024 (filing fee for previous application by consent	$27.00	Previous order application 5037028 dated 11 December 2024 (filing fee for previous application by consent
Water rates (by consent	$293.80	Water rates (by consent
Cleaning (by consent	$150.00	Cleaning (by consent
Window repairs (by consent	$132.25	Window repairs (by consent
Repairs: Lino materials only (by consent	$181.30	Repairs: Lino materials only (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement (this application	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement (this application
Net award	$903.92
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$903.92

Order

Rosemarie Pillia and Tifa Avia to pay Christchurch Property Limited $903.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5198557-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Christchurch Property Limited: $903.92 Rosemarie Pillia and Tifa Avia: $1,696.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Catanach attended on behalf of the landlord.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The parties had previously attended a hearing (5037028) where the amount owed for rent arears was agreed and the landlord was awarded the filing fee.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The tenant has made payments of rent since the last hearing and has also paid the majority of the arears.
The parties agreed on the amount of arrears still outstanding, and that amount is ordered together with the filing fee for application 5037028.
The tenant was unaware of the water rates invoice ($293.80) until after the tenancy ended but accepted responsibility for the amount.
The above amounts are ordered by consent.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and accepted responsibility for the amount claimed for additional cleaning, being $150.00.
The landlord claimed $300.00 for professional carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that the carpets smelt of dog and needed to be professionally cleaned.
The tenancy agreement included a clause allowing one dog to live at the property. An additional clause required that the carpets be cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
A tenant is not obliged to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy unless that is required to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard as required by the Act.
The outgoing report noted that the carpets throughout had not been professionally cleaned but did not refer to marks or stains on the carpets or to any smell.
The tenant said that that the dog stayed outside and that the carpets smelt the same at the beginning of the tenancy as they did at the end.
The landlord denied this and gave evidence that the carpets had been professionally cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy.
Given the lack of evidence as to whether the carpets required professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy to be brought to a reasonably clean and tidy standard, I cannot award the carpet cleaning costs and that claim is dismissed.
The amount ordered, being $150.00 for cleaning is ordered by consent.

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 under 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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: a. Damage to a window latch. b. Damage to the kitchen lino. c. Damage to an area of wall in the lounge.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepts responsibility for the damage to the window latch ($132.25) and the lino ($181.30).
Those amounts are ordered by consent.
The tenant denies liability for the costs to repair the damage to the lounge wall.
There is no dispute that the wall was damaged and that the tenant had made partial repairs just prior to leaving the tenancy.
The tenant says that she was clearing the wall in preparation for the end of the tenancy, and it collapsed inward under normal cleaning pressure.
The tenant asked her brother (a tradesperson), to make repairs and during that (partial) repair it was discovered that there had been previous damage to this area which had been repaired in non-professional way. The tenant said that it as this prior repair that caused the wall damage under normal cleaning.
The landlord accepted that there were areas of the house that had been damaged by prior tenants and were repaired before this tenancy began but said that this was not one of those areas.
The tenant showed photographs to the landlord during the hearing to support her claim that there was earlier damage in this location. The landlord accepted that there had been a previous repair but still claimed that the damage caused by this tenant must be more than fair wear and tear and that the tenant should pay the costs of plastering and painting required to complete the report that the tenant had started.
After the hearing, the tenant emailed these same photographs to the Tribunal.
It is clear from the photographs that a very poor repair job (involving cardboard and filler spray) had been completed to conceal previous damage.
The tenant is not liable for the cost of completing this repair as they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The claim for repairs to the wall is dismissed.
The amounts ordered, being $132.25 and $181.30 as specified above, are ordered by consent. Filing fee
As Christchurch Property Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229451 — Property damage at 2 George Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229451 — Property damage at 2 George Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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