How much money was awarded in case 5234991?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,087.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,778.57 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Hob: $163.79 awarded to landlord; Fibre Box: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Garage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Walls: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Door: $275.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $464.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234991?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11998822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5234991?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,087.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,778.57 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Hob: $163.79 awarded to landlord; Fibre Box: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Garage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Walls: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Door: $275.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $464.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234991?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11998822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62 Bridge Street, Bulls 4818 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234991 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234991 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234991 — net $9,686.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,778.57	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment
Cleaning	$2,087.25	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$464.56	Rubbish removal
Repairs: ceramic hob	$163.79	Repairs: ceramic hob
Repairs: kitchen cupboard	$180.00	Repairs: kitchen cupboard
Repairs: oven door	$275.80	Repairs: oven door
Repairs: kitchen vinyl	$1,000.00	Repairs: kitchen vinyl
Repairs: garage	$1,000.00	Repairs: garage
Repairs: fibre box	$250.00	Repairs: fibre box
Repairs: lounge walls	$1,000.00	Repairs: lounge walls
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Window repairs: bedroom 1	$650.00	Window repairs: bedroom 1
Window repairs: lounge ranch slider	$350.00	Window repairs: lounge ranch slider
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,686.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,686.97

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Johnathon Bismark and Peta Simmonds must pay [The landlord/s] $9,686.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,778.57 Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment$500.00 Cleaning$2,087.25 Lock/key replacement$200.00 Rubbish removal$464.56 Repairs: ceramic hob$163.79 Repairs: kitchen cupboard$180.00 Repairs: oven door$275.80 Repairs: kitchen vinyl$1,000.00 Repairs: garage$1,000.00 Repairs: fibre box$250.00 Repairs: lounge walls$1,000.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$1,000.00 Window repairs: bedroom 1$650.00 Window repairs: lounge ranch slider$350.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$11,926.97 Bond$2,240.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$9,686.97

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

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?

The tenancy ended on 6 May 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

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant did not return the keys.

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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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 landlord provided an insurance report and photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The ceramic hob was damaged during the tenancy and the tenant had accepted liability and was paying off. the cost of repair. The balance owing is awarded to the landlord. b. The door to a kitchen cupboard had been removed and required reinstatement with replaced hinges. This was intentional damage. c. A window in a bedroom was broken. This was careless damage. d. There was a crack in the glass to the ranch slider in the lounge. This was careless damage. e. The seal to the oven door had been removed and required replacement. This was intentional damage. f. The vinyl in the kitchen was stained and ripped. This was careless damage. g. A corner of the garage had been damaged. It was most probably hit by a vehicle. This was careless damage. h. The internet fibre box had been removed from the property. This was intentional damage. i. There was a large hole in a lounge wall and significant damage which appeared to be caused by dog scratching. The hole was careless damage and the dog damage was intentional using the reasoning in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. j. The carpet in the back bedroom was damaged beyond repair by dog urine. Using the reasoning in Guo v Korck, this was intentional damage.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The carpet and vinyl would have been in serviceable condition at the end of the tenancy but for the actions of the tenant. They both had a residual utility value. It is appropriate to award the amount of the landlord’s insurance excesses for this damage.

The wallpaper in the lounge was of an indeterminate age and was not in good repair. It is at the end of its useful life. It is appropriate to award a sum for the repair of the hole and tidying up the wallpaper at a level which the Tribunal sees for work of this nature in this area.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234991 — net $9,686.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,778.57	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment
Cleaning	$2,087.25	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$464.56	Rubbish removal
Repairs: ceramic hob	$163.79	Repairs: ceramic hob
Repairs: kitchen cupboard	$180.00	Repairs: kitchen cupboard
Repairs: oven door	$275.80	Repairs: oven door
Repairs: kitchen vinyl	$1,000.00	Repairs: kitchen vinyl
Repairs: garage	$1,000.00	Repairs: garage
Repairs: fibre box	$250.00	Repairs: fibre box
Repairs: lounge walls	$1,000.00	Repairs: lounge walls
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Window repairs: bedroom 1	$650.00	Window repairs: bedroom 1
Window repairs: lounge ranch slider	$350.00	Window repairs: lounge ranch slider
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,686.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,686.97

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Johnathon Bismark and Peta Simmonds must pay [The landlord/s] $9,686.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,778.57 Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment$500.00 Cleaning$2,087.25 Lock/key replacement$200.00 Rubbish removal$464.56 Repairs: ceramic hob$163.79 Repairs: kitchen cupboard$180.00 Repairs: oven door$275.80 Repairs: kitchen vinyl$1,000.00 Repairs: garage$1,000.00 Repairs: fibre box$250.00 Repairs: lounge walls$1,000.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$1,000.00 Window repairs: bedroom 1$650.00 Window repairs: lounge ranch slider$350.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$11,926.97 Bond$2,240.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$9,686.97

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
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?

The tenancy ended on 6 May 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
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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 landlord provided an insurance report and photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The ceramic hob was damaged during the tenancy and the tenant had accepted liability and was paying off. the cost of repair. The balance owing is awarded to the landlord. b. The door to a kitchen cupboard had been removed and required reinstatement with replaced hinges. This was intentional damage. c. A window in a bedroom was broken. This was careless damage. d. There was a crack in the glass to the ranch slider in the lounge. This was careless damage. e. The seal to the oven door had been removed and required replacement. This was intentional damage. f. The vinyl in the kitchen was stained and ripped. This was careless damage. g. A corner of the garage had been damaged. It was most probably hit by a vehicle. This was careless damage. h. The internet fibre box had been removed from the property. This was intentional damage. i. There was a large hole in a lounge wall and significant damage which appeared to be caused by dog scratching. The hole was careless damage and the dog damage was intentional using the reasoning in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. j. The carpet in the back bedroom was damaged beyond repair by dog urine. Using the reasoning in Guo v Korck, this was intentional damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The carpet and vinyl would have been in serviceable condition at the end of the tenancy but for the actions of the tenant. They both had a residual utility value. It is appropriate to award the amount of the landlord’s insurance excesses for this damage.
The wallpaper in the lounge was of an indeterminate age and was not in good repair. It is at the end of its useful life. It is appropriate to award a sum for the repair of the hole and tidying up the wallpaper at a level which the Tribunal sees for work of this nature in this area.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234991 — Property damage at 62 Bridge Street, Bulls 4818

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234991 — Property damage at 62 Bridge Street, Bulls 4818

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

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

Frequently asked questions