What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234111 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5234111?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Stove: $377.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $386.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $273.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,741.00 awarded to landlord; Door Frame: $303.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $255.92 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $483.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234111?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12104023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234111 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5234111?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Stove: $377.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $386.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $273.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,741.00 awarded to landlord; Door Frame: $303.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $255.92 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $483.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234111?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12104023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234111 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234111 — net $2,007.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,741.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal and lawns	$255.92	Rubbish removal and lawns
Plumbing and pest control (half	$273.70	Plumbing and pest control (half
Water rates	$483.16	Water rates
Repairs: Door frame	$303.00	Repairs: Door frame
Cleaning	$280.00	Cleaning
Painting	$386.00	The claim for the cost of painting those areas is fair and reasonable. I will not apply depreciation to the cost claimed because the premises were painted shor…
Compensation: Stove	$377.70	Stove
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	38. The landlord has been substantially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
Net award	$2,007.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,007.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,007.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 25 October 2024 and ended on 26 April 2025.
[The tenant/s] was the sole named tenant. [The tenant/s] lived at the house with her young children.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, and other costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 9 July 2025. [The landlord’s representative/s] represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claims for rent arrears, water rates, and rubbish removal. [The tenant/s] accepted the claim for cleaning but questioned the hourly rate charged by the cleaner - $35 per hour. I am satisfied that this is a standard and reasonable rate in the industry. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy, if the damage is due to a careless or intentional action by themselves or by someone who is at the premises with their consent. 1
In any claim for damage: a. The landlord must prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is careless or intentional damage rather than fair wear and tear. b. If the landlord proves this, the tenant has the burden of proof to establish that the damage was not caused by them or by anyone who was at the premises with their consent. 2
The landlord made the following claims for damage: a. Replace window stay, ranchslider handle & lock, and re-glaze broken window. b. Repair door frame. c. Painting in lounge and bedroom. d. Replace shower head and kitchen waste plug. e. Replace oven. 1 Sections 49B & 41 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B(8) RTA Window latches, window pane
The claim seeks the cost of re-glazing a cracked window, replacing the ranchslider lock and handle, and replacing a window stay. [The landlord’s representative/s] provided photographs of the damage.
It is not disputed that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The windowpane cracked when she closed the window using normal force. b. The window stay and ranchslider door handle and lock were removed / disabled by a person who entered the premises without her consent.. [The tenant/s]’s oral evidence was clear, detailed, and credible. I accept that: -The cracked windowpane was not due to any careless or intentional action. -The damage to the window stay and the ranchslider was caused by someone who did not have [The tenant/s]’s consent to be at the premises. [The tenant/s] took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises.
Therefore I find that [The tenant/s] is not liable for this cost. Door frame
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that she damaged the door frame during the tenancy. [The tenant/s] said that the door slammed shut and locked (due to a faulty lock) with her daughter inside. [The tenant/s] forced the door open and damaged the door frame.
Although there is no specific exemption in the Residential Tenancies Act for damage caused by a tenant in an emergency situation, I accept the principle that causing damage in an emergency situation to protect life or property is not properly described as “careless or intentional” damage for which a tenant is liable.
However, this is a narrow exception, and the circumstances must be a genuine emergency. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that she did not attempt to contact [The landlord’s representative/s] when this incident happened.
I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] acted instinctively, but her action was intentional, her daughter was not in any imminent risk of harm, and she had other options.
My finding is that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the door frame. Painting in lounge and bedroom
The claim seeks $386.00 (materials and labour) for painting the walls in the lounge and a bedroom.
[The tenant/s] disputed this part of the claim on the grounds that the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear.
The tenancy lasted for six months.
Having regard to the photographs provided by [The landlord’s representative/s], I am satisfied that the damage to the walls in the lounge and bedroom is beyond fair wear and tear. The photographs show gouges and dents that are in the category of careless damage.
The claim for the cost of painting those areas is fair and reasonable. I will not apply depreciation to the cost claimed because the premises were painted shortly before the start of this tenancy. Shower head and kitchen waste plug
The evidence provided to me does not establish that the showerhead was damaged by some careless or intentional action by the tenant.
I also accept [The tenant/s]’s explanation that she was not responsible for the kitchen waste plug going missing.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Oven
The claim seeks the cost of assessing the stove and a contribution to the cost of replacing it, on the grounds that the hinges on the oven door were damaged during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] accepted that her daughter opened the oven door somewhat forcefully, and the oven door would not shut properly after that.
[The tenant/s] does not dispute the assessment costs, but she disputes the replacement cost. She said that the fact that her 2-year-old daughter was able to damage the stove beyond repair by opening the door carelessly indicates that the stove was nearing, or at, the end of its useful life.
I am satisfied that: a. The damage occurred during the tenancy, and it is beyond fair wear and tear. b. The cost of $161.00 was reasonably incurred to assess the condition of the stove. c. The stove was not repairable. d. The tenant is liable for the cost of assessment and the cost of replacement, but depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost. e. Having regard to the age of the existing oven, its apparent condition (shown in the landlord’s photographs) and taking into account [The tenant/s]’s argument that the damage was incurred very easily, I will apply depreciation of 80% to the proven replacement costs. f. The tenant is liable to pay $377.70 for the damage to the oven, comprised of the assessment cost ($161.00) and 20% of the replacement costs ($216.70). Other costs Lawns
[The tenant/s] said that she mowed the lawns a few days before the end of the tenancy. She also commented that the lawns were overgrown at the start of her tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs show a different story. The entry photographs show that the lawns were tidy. The end of tenancy photographs show that the lawns were generally long-ish with some more overgrown areas.
The claim for lawnmowing at the end of the tenancy is fair and reasonable. Pest control
There was a cockroach problem at the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord and tenant agreed to pay half each for professional pest treatment.
[The tenant/s] now disputes this cost on the grounds that the landlord failed to take adequate steps to deal with the cockroach problem, that it was unpleasant for her to live with, and that she felt pressured into agreeing to contribute half of the pest treatment cost.
Management of normal environmental pests is a shared responsibility of landlords or tenants. Sometimes there are obvious contributing factors to an infestation, and responsibility can be apportioned accordingly – for example if the tenant allows rubbish to build up at the premises which encourages pests or if the landlord fails to maintain the premises which allows pests access.
In this instance there are no obvious contributing factors and the cause or causes of the cockroach infestation cannot be known with any certainty. In the circumstances the agreement to split the cost of pest treatment was reasonable and appropriate, and I will uphold that agreement. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond and the bond will be released to the landlord.
The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted due to security concerns that [The tenant/s] explained at the hearing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234111 — net $2,007.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,741.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal and lawns	$255.92	Rubbish removal and lawns
Plumbing and pest control (half	$273.70	Plumbing and pest control (half
Water rates	$483.16	Water rates
Repairs: Door frame	$303.00	Repairs: Door frame
Cleaning	$280.00	Cleaning
Painting	$386.00	The claim for the cost of painting those areas is fair and reasonable. I will not apply depreciation to the cost claimed because the premises were painted shor…
Compensation: Stove	$377.70	Stove
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	38. The landlord has been substantially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
Net award	$2,007.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,007.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,007.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 25 October 2024 and ended on 26 April 2025.
[The tenant/s] was the sole named tenant. [The tenant/s] lived at the house with her young children.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, and other costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 9 July 2025. [The landlord’s representative/s] represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claims for rent arrears, water rates, and rubbish removal. [The tenant/s] accepted the claim for cleaning but questioned the hourly rate charged by the cleaner - $35 per hour. I am satisfied that this is a standard and reasonable rate in the industry. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy, if the damage is due to a careless or intentional action by themselves or by someone who is at the premises with their consent. 1
In any claim for damage: a. The landlord must prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is careless or intentional damage rather than fair wear and tear. b. If the landlord proves this, the tenant has the burden of proof to establish that the damage was not caused by them or by anyone who was at the premises with their consent. 2
The landlord made the following claims for damage: a. Replace window stay, ranchslider handle & lock, and re-glaze broken window. b. Repair door frame. c. Painting in lounge and bedroom. d. Replace shower head and kitchen waste plug. e. Replace oven. 1 Sections 49B & 41 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B(8) RTA Window latches, window pane
The claim seeks the cost of re-glazing a cracked window, replacing the ranchslider lock and handle, and replacing a window stay. [The landlord’s representative/s] provided photographs of the damage.
It is not disputed that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The windowpane cracked when she closed the window using normal force. b. The window stay and ranchslider door handle and lock were removed / disabled by a person who entered the premises without her consent.. [The tenant/s]’s oral evidence was clear, detailed, and credible. I accept that: -The cracked windowpane was not due to any careless or intentional action. -The damage to the window stay and the ranchslider was caused by someone who did not have [The tenant/s]’s consent to be at the premises. [The tenant/s] took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises.
Therefore I find that [The tenant/s] is not liable for this cost. Door frame
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that she damaged the door frame during the tenancy. [The tenant/s] said that the door slammed shut and locked (due to a faulty lock) with her daughter inside. [The tenant/s] forced the door open and damaged the door frame.
Although there is no specific exemption in the Residential Tenancies Act for damage caused by a tenant in an emergency situation, I accept the principle that causing damage in an emergency situation to protect life or property is not properly described as “careless or intentional” damage for which a tenant is liable.
However, this is a narrow exception, and the circumstances must be a genuine emergency. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that she did not attempt to contact [The landlord’s representative/s] when this incident happened.
I acknowledge that [The tenant/s] acted instinctively, but her action was intentional, her daughter was not in any imminent risk of harm, and she had other options.
My finding is that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the door frame. Painting in lounge and bedroom
The claim seeks $386.00 (materials and labour) for painting the walls in the lounge and a bedroom.
[The tenant/s] disputed this part of the claim on the grounds that the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear.
The tenancy lasted for six months.
Having regard to the photographs provided by [The landlord’s representative/s], I am satisfied that the damage to the walls in the lounge and bedroom is beyond fair wear and tear. The photographs show gouges and dents that are in the category of careless damage.
The claim for the cost of painting those areas is fair and reasonable. I will not apply depreciation to the cost claimed because the premises were painted shortly before the start of this tenancy. Shower head and kitchen waste plug
The evidence provided to me does not establish that the showerhead was damaged by some careless or intentional action by the tenant.
I also accept [The tenant/s]’s explanation that she was not responsible for the kitchen waste plug going missing.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Oven
The claim seeks the cost of assessing the stove and a contribution to the cost of replacing it, on the grounds that the hinges on the oven door were damaged during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] accepted that her daughter opened the oven door somewhat forcefully, and the oven door would not shut properly after that.
[The tenant/s] does not dispute the assessment costs, but she disputes the replacement cost. She said that the fact that her 2-year-old daughter was able to damage the stove beyond repair by opening the door carelessly indicates that the stove was nearing, or at, the end of its useful life.
I am satisfied that: a. The damage occurred during the tenancy, and it is beyond fair wear and tear. b. The cost of $161.00 was reasonably incurred to assess the condition of the stove. c. The stove was not repairable. d. The tenant is liable for the cost of assessment and the cost of replacement, but depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost. e. Having regard to the age of the existing oven, its apparent condition (shown in the landlord’s photographs) and taking into account [The tenant/s]’s argument that the damage was incurred very easily, I will apply depreciation of 80% to the proven replacement costs. f. The tenant is liable to pay $377.70 for the damage to the oven, comprised of the assessment cost ($161.00) and 20% of the replacement costs ($216.70). Other costs Lawns
[The tenant/s] said that she mowed the lawns a few days before the end of the tenancy. She also commented that the lawns were overgrown at the start of her tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs show a different story. The entry photographs show that the lawns were tidy. The end of tenancy photographs show that the lawns were generally long-ish with some more overgrown areas.
The claim for lawnmowing at the end of the tenancy is fair and reasonable. Pest control
There was a cockroach problem at the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord and tenant agreed to pay half each for professional pest treatment.
[The tenant/s] now disputes this cost on the grounds that the landlord failed to take adequate steps to deal with the cockroach problem, that it was unpleasant for her to live with, and that she felt pressured into agreeing to contribute half of the pest treatment cost.
Management of normal environmental pests is a shared responsibility of landlords or tenants. Sometimes there are obvious contributing factors to an infestation, and responsibility can be apportioned accordingly – for example if the tenant allows rubbish to build up at the premises which encourages pests or if the landlord fails to maintain the premises which allows pests access.
In this instance there are no obvious contributing factors and the cause or causes of the cockroach infestation cannot be known with any certainty. In the circumstances the agreement to split the cost of pest treatment was reasonable and appropriate, and I will uphold that agreement. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond and the bond will be released to the landlord.
The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted due to security concerns that [The tenant/s] explained at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234111 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234111 — Rent arrears

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