What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5236241 about?

The tribunal order states: Stephen Barrett as Trustee For Windows Of Heaven Trust must pay [The party] $1,046.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5236241?

Rent Credit: $1,442.86 awarded to tenant; Handle: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Piano BY CONSENT: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Window Grill - BY CONSENT: $56.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Coffee Table: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236241?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12250448-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5236241 about?

The tribunal order states: Stephen Barrett as Trustee For Windows Of Heaven Trust must pay [The party] $1,046.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5236241?

Rent Credit: $1,442.86 awarded to tenant; Handle: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Piano BY CONSENT: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Window Grill - BY CONSENT: $56.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Coffee Table: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236241?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12250448-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Fairfield Road, Hawera, Hawera 4610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5236241 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5236241 — net $1,046.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Piano BY CONSENT	$200.00		Repairs: Piano BY CONSENT
Rubbish removal: BY CONSENT	$45.00		Rubbish removal: BY CONSENT
Repairs: Handle	$45.00		Repairs: Handle
Replace furnishings: Coffee Table	$50.00		Replace furnishings: Coffee Table
Repairs: Window grill - BY CONSENT	$56.00		Repairs: Window grill - BY CONSENT
Rent credit to 2 May 2025		$1,442.86	Rent credit to 2 May 2025
Total award	$396.00	$1,442.86
Net award		$1,046.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,046.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5236241 — net $1,046.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Piano BY CONSENT	$200.00		Repairs: Piano BY CONSENT
Rubbish removal: BY CONSENT	$45.00		Rubbish removal: BY CONSENT
Repairs: Handle	$45.00		Repairs: Handle
Replace furnishings: Coffee Table	$50.00		Replace furnishings: Coffee Table
Repairs: Window grill - BY CONSENT	$56.00		Repairs: Window grill - BY CONSENT
Rent credit to 2 May 2025		$1,442.86	Rent credit to 2 May 2025
Total award	$396.00	$1,442.86
Net award		$1,046.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,046.86

Order

Stephen Barrett as Trustee For Windows Of Heaven Trust must pay [The party] $1,046.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5626645-006) to [The party] immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for carpet and mattress cleaning, missing sofa, towel rail, trim, mirror, cane chairs, bedding, carpet in bedroom, oven, office chairs, piano stool, brick pillar and legal costs are dismissed.
The landlord’s application for a missing stereo is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages for a failure to lodge a bond within the required timescale is dismissed.

Reasons

Both the landlord and tenant attended the hearing. The tenant also had a support person. Overview
The landlord has bought a claim for compensation relating to tenant obligations following the end of the tenancy and rent arrears. The tenant wants her bond back, exemplary damages for a landlord’s failure to lodge a bond within the required statutory timescales and compensation for that failure. She says that she is in rent credit.
The property comprises of the main house and a number of outbuildings including a sleep out. The tenancy agreement sets out that the minor outbuildings are excluded from the tenancy but that the tenant has the use of the garage. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not and similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Missing evidence – General observation
The landlord offered to provide evidence from his property manager and former tenant, Trevor at the start of the hearing to support his claims. Trevor also providing an affidavit was also asserted on the application form itself.
I invited the landlord to get Trevor to attend as a witness, but Trevor did not attend to give evidence as I was told he was painting a roof. This was despite giving the landlord time to get his witness to the hearing (as the hearing lasted most of the day).
Trevor’s absence causes evidential difficulties for the landlord because at the start of this tenancy (and at various times throughout) the landlord was absent and overseas. There is also no ingoing property inspection report or usual associated photographs. Painting a roof is not a satisfactory explanation particularly given the importance of Trevor’s evidence.
An inference may arise when a witness who is reasonably expected to be called by a party is not presented, and no satisfactory explanation is given for their absence. The inference of Trevor not being called as a witness is that his evidence would have been unfavourable to the landlord.
Further, even if Trevor did give evidence, the fact that he was the previous tenant but then immediately became the manager for the new tenant, without the landlord having some form of independent check of the property in between, may have had an impact of the credibility of his evidence (because if he had damaged the property or left rubbish or removed chattels when he was the previous tenant he could be liable rather than this tenant).

What sums are owed in relation to rent?

This tenancy began in November 2022 and has now ended. I heard that the tenant moved out in mid-April following a notice given by the landlord to end the tenancy on 3 May 2025 pursuant to a 42 days’ notice (section 51(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as the landlord was going to move into the property himself.
The landlord says the tenant was liable for rent to 2 May 2025 given that the tenant did not give the required notice to end the tenancy sooner than that set out on the notice (see section 51(2A)). The tenant did not dispute this or that she was liable for the rent to 2 May 2025.
At the time of making his original application the landlord sought $971.42 in arrears. However, by the time of the hearing the landlord stated that the tenant was in fact now in credit.
The tenant disputed the amount of the credit saying she was owed more than the landlord had accounted for in the rent summary because she had never had the required notice of a rent increase. I heard how the tenancy had begun at $380 per week and the landlord had applied a rent increase to $400 on 1 August 2024.
The tenant said she had no idea about a rent increase until a 14-day notice was provided in February 2025. The landlord only notified WINZ of the increase and not the tenant.
The landlord says he told WINZ of the increase but there is no evidence that the landlord notified the tenant herself or gave her notice of an increase as required by section 24 RTA which provides so far as relevant: Rent increases (1) The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c)...; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy....
I find that the landlord did not give the required notice in writing to the tenant of the increase and did not specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable.
Importantly, it is not sufficient that the landlord only communicated with WINZ about an increase even if WINZ is paying the rent because the tenancy agreement is between him and the tenant not between the landlord and WINZ.
I therefore find that the rent remained at $380 per week for the whole tenancy.
Making this adjustment to the landlord’s rent summary (the start or end date for liability was not disputed or challenged by the tenant) so that the amount payable per week is $380 throughout the tenancy shows that the tenant is in credit by $1,442.86.
This is the amount the tenant clarified she therefore sought as a refund of credit, and this is therefore ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed for a range of alleged damage at the end of the tenancy. Some of the damage was to the premises and some was to chattels.
I first turn to the damage to the premises before moving to the chattels.
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.
Further, everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. If an item has to be replaced earlier because of tenant damage, and is replaced with a newer or better item, then the compensation needs to be adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be in a better position after a claim in the Tribunal, than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. The Tribunal often considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Tribunal rarely accepts claims for damage compensation where the landlord has only provided quotes. The onus is on the landlord to show actual loss, and this is usually achieved by the filing of tax invoices and expense receipts. Towel rail and bath surround
The landlord claims $86 for a broken towel rail and trim around the bath. He has not yet made a repair and produced no probative evidence to support the sum claimed.
The tenant says that the towel rail would detach itself as it was only held on by a sticky pad but admits that she cleaned the bath surround, and it broke when she was cleaning it. She says it was old and broke easily.
The landlord says that the towel rail was also screwed to the wall. The bath has been in place since before 2010 when the landlord purchased the house.
Given the age of the bath, I find that the damage to the bath surround was more likely than not, fair wear and tear or at worst is accidental damage and therefore not damage the tenant is liable for. Trims do not last indefinitely.
The towel rail appears to be old and is made of plastic. It appears to be broken as well as becoming detached from the wall from a sticky pad - which I can see on the photograph provided.
However, the property inspection report here for the start of the tenancy is far from persuasive. It is filled in simply with the generic remarks “fair wear and tear” for each room. Further, it was completed by the previous tenant (Trevor), who unusually became the property manager for this tenancy, and the landlord did not inspect the property between those two tenancies. There are no pre- tenancy photographs.
The landlord is unable to sufficiently prove the condition of the rail at the start of the tenancy. It may have been that the rail was broken and held up in part, with a sticky pad as the tenant says – she lived there, and the landlord did not visit the property between Trevor’s tenancy ending and this tenancy starting.
Therefore, I find that the landlord has not proven that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and in any event if damage did occur in the tenancy, it would most likely be fair wear and tear given the age and type of rail.
Finally, even if that is wrong, I would not make an award due to the likely old age of the towel rail (depreciation would have reduced the sum claimed) and the lack of probative evidence about the replacement cost of the rail.
This claim is dismissed. Bathroom mirror
The landlord claims that one mirrored panel from the bathroom cabinet was missing. He seeks $45.
There is no probative evidence to support the sum claimed despite the landlord saying he has an invoice to support the sum claimed.
The tenant says the mirror was always like this. She thought that was how the cabinet was. I find this credible given the type of mirrored cabinet this is and the fact the property inspection report simply says “fair wear and tear” and the landlord cannot give any evidence as to how the cabinet was at the start of the tenancy as he was not there and Trevor did not attend to give evidence.
The landlord has not proven that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Sliding handle
The landlord claims $45 for damage to handles on a sliding door. On one side of the door the handle has been reattached but on the other side of the door the handle was missing and located outside.
The tenant does not dispute that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy but says that the door did not have a stopper so it would go too far, and the handle would break off. The landlord says there is a stopper. It is unclear how the handle got outside.
If a tenant knows that the handle will be damaged if the door goes too far then in allowing the door to be opened in this way is at the least careless. The sum sought is under the landlord’s insurance excess of $500.
The landlord has not provided probative evidence of the sum he claims for the replacement of the handle but it is a minor amount and commensurate with what an ordinary person would expect as reasonable (Nixon v Geal-Otter TT 216/94). Further, the landlord has not claimed labour costs. I have not depreciated the cost of the handles because the handle pictured inside, which best indicates condition, looks to be in an as new condition and the amount claimed is minor.
The sum ordered is proven. Bedroom carpet
The landlord claims $590 for a damaged carpet in a bedroom. There is no probative evidence to support the sum claimed and no replacement has yet been done. The landlord says insurance will not cover this as it was not a single event but a gradual event. The carpet pre-dates 2010 when the landlord bought the house.
The tenant says the carpet was really old carpet that would come apart every time she vacuumed it. She says maybe she vacuumed too much.
Given the age of this carpet, in the absence of sufficient evidence of the state of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, I am not satisfied that this is anything more than fair wear and tear and tear.
Even if I am wrong in this, the carpet is at least 15 years old, if not more. The estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy, according to the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR265) is 8 years. Here the carpet is at least 15 years old but possibly much older. The carpet has come to the end of its estimated useful life for depreciation purposes. There is no probative evidence to show the general condition of the carpet, either at the start of the tenancy or even afterwards (the only photograph is a close up shot of the area concerned). Even if the claim was established I would have found that the carpet had fully depreciated and not made an award. The landlord has also not yet replaced the carpet and cannot prove loss.
Taking all of these factors into consideration I decline to make an award and the claim is dismissed. Brick pillar
The landlord says that during the course of the tenancy a brick pillar at the entrance to the property was broken. The landlord says that the adjoining fence stopped it from falling over. He says that he had a discussion with the tenant’s partner at the time and asked if it had been hit by a truck. The landlord says that the tenant did not have a car themselves at the time and was non- committal.
The landlord says that the tenant has now squared it up but it remains broken at the base. The landlord says that the person who built it has quoted $480 to $550 to fix it. He says that his insurance does not cover fences.
The tenant says that she is unsure how it broke. So far as she is aware no friends or family drove/backed into it. She says she tried to fix it because it was annoying. It was annoying because her mailbox sat on top of it and it was wobbly. The tenant says that the pillar, which is about hip height, was not properly finished. At the moment, the pillar is a hollow square of bricks that has not been capped off and it has a reinforcement bar sticking out of the top of it.
The landlord confirmed that four of six pillars at the property had the reinforcement bar sticking out of the top of the pillar because he could not yet find concrete caps.
Because of the position of the pillar (on the fence line) and the fact that work remained incomplete on the pillar I am not satisfied that it was the tenant or a person for whose actions she is responsible for caused this damage.
In any event, I am not satisfied that the landlord is sufficiently able to prove his loss because the work has not yet been done to repair this and there is no probative evidence of the repair costs whatsoever which is suitable upon which I can make an award.
The claim is dismissed. Sleepout window grill
The tenant agreed to pay $56 to remedy the fact a window grill had been taken down in the sleep out. This is ordered by consent. Oven
The landlord says that the top of the oven was broken in three ways a) the glass was loose b) the hinges were asymmetrical and c) the handle was broken.
I heard how the oven is an English oven given to the landlord by friends who did not want it anymore. He says he installed it in 2015.
The tenant says there was no handle from the start, the part that is damaged is the top part of oven (grill) and it was hard to open so not used.
The landlord claims $208.73 for fixing the handle. Since undertaking that fix he has discovered that the remainder of the oven’s issues cannot be fixed. He will make an insurance claim and also claims the insurance excess of $500. He has not yet bought a replacement oven.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the damage was caused by the tenant during the course of the tenancy or that the damage is anything other than fair wear and tear given the oven’s age.
I find the tenant has the better evidence – she lived there, and the landlord did not go to the property between the tenancies and Trevor did not give evidence. The property inspection report carries little weight given its generic description and the fact the previous tenant prepared it.
Even if this is wrong the IRD depreciation schedule estimates the economic useful life of an oven in a residential tenancy to be 8 years.
Given the evidence concerning the age of the oven and the lack of probative evidence about its condition at the start of the tenancy I therefore would not, in any event, have made an award for this damage given that it has come to the end of its estimated useful life for depreciation purposes.
The claim is dismissed. Chattels
I will now turn to the claims for chattels. Office chairs
The landlord says he provided two office chairs with the property. These are not on the chattels list.
Section 13A, RTA requires a tenancy agreement to include a list of any chattels provided by the landlord. Section 37 RTA also provides that the tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises. Leaving items that are not part of the tenancy agreement at the premises may mean that a tenant does not have vacant possession.
The tenancy agreement states:
Where chattels have been left but not listed, not only may this breach section 13A and section 37, RTA, its absence makes matters difficult practically for both the tenant and the landlord particularly at the end of the tenancy to reconcile what ought to be left at the end of the tenancy. It is not uncommon for some landlords to leave items at a property that they think might be useful to the tenant or that they simply do not want to have to dispose of (often left by previous tenants). For example, outdoor chairs, bookcases, gardening tools or additional bins. They are often left for the landlord’s convenience rather than for any real benefit for the tenant.
If an item is not included in a chattel list the problem is that the tenant is left in an unclear position – Can they dispose of the item if they do not want it? Do they have to, or can they, remove it when they leave? It also creates uncertainty for a landlord: Does the landlord have to replace it as part of their maintenance obligations? In behaving this way, the landlord might also fail to give vacant possession or even breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment (section 38, RTA). This will all depend on the facts.
The landlord said during the hearing that he operated on trust. However, he also must follow his statutory duties including the need to provide a full and accurate chattels list. As set out above, to prevent confusion and potential legal conflict, landlords should ensure all chattels are clearly itemised in the list of chattels as required by the RTA.
The landlord here says the office chairs have been damaged and seeks replacement cost of $60.
The tenant says that these are chairs that her ex had provided for her. They are not the landlord’s chairs. The landlord wonders why they were left behind if they were the tenant’s chairs.
The fact that the chairs are not listed on the tenancy agreement means that the landlord cannot prove that they are his. He was not present at all at the start of the tenancy so he cannot give reliable evidence as to what was provided at the outset of the tenancy.
In any event, I heard that the chairs were purchased in 2016 and so given their age I would consider that their value has been fully depreciated, and I would not make an award in any event.
The claim is dismissed. Coffee table
The landlord says the top of a wooden coffee table is damaged. He claims $150 as a replacement cost. There is no probative evidence to support the sum claimed. The table is over 20 years old but is solid wood.
The tenant says that during the tenancy a bottle of hand sanitizer exploded and while it was wiped off, it left these marks.
I am satisfied that damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. There are a number of distinct rings indicating something has been put down several times causing a number of marks. I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the damage that occurred here was not caused carelessly.
In the absence of probative evidence as to the replacement cost and better evidence as to the condition of the table at the start of the tenancy, given its significant age but accounting for the fact it is a solid piece of furniture, I award the landlord $50 in respect of this loss which I consider to be reasonable. Piano
The landlord and tenant agreed that the tenant would pay $200 towards the cleaning of piano keys which had been marked. This is ordered by consent. Piano stool
The landlord claims $225 for damage done to a piano stool that he says is an antique. The piano stool is not on the chattels list provided with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord was not sure if the stool was in the house or the sleepout (which did not form part of the tenancy agreement – see below). He says he did not know where it was at the start of the tenancy but it ended up in the back shed (which also was not part of the tenancy). The tenant says she knows nothing about a piano stool.
The stool is not on the chattels list. There are no photographs to support the claim that this was a chattel left at the house either.
In this case the landlord cannot state with any precision that the stool was in the house or the sleepout. In fact, he states he does not know where it was at the start of the tenancy. It is not on the chattels list. The tenant says she has never seen it. It has been located in a shed that fell outside of the tenancy agreement and was reserved for the landlord’s use (although the tenant admitted they could access this shed as they kept their lawnmower there).
The landlord cannot prove that this was a chattel provided in the tenancy and therefore the claim is dismissed. In any event, there was no probative evidence to support the sum claimed as loss.
This claim is dismissed. Two cane chairs
The landlord seeks $80 to replace two cane chairs. He says they were in the lounge and had cushions on them. He says the chairs were about 6 years old. He found the cushions in the garage grubby and dirty. The chairs were found stacked outside beside a building.
The tenant says that at the start of the tenancy the chairs were outside on the veranda and that they deteriorated during the tenancy. She says she mentioned this to the landlord, but he said to leave them there and they fell apart. They put the chairs in that spot outside as they had nowhere else to put them. The landlord says they could not have been on the veranda at the start of the tenancy because the green chair was there. He provided a photograph of that, but this photograph was not from the start of the tenancy or even taken close to the start of the tenancy.
The tenant has admitted that these chairs were provided during the course of the tenancy, and they were outside. I accept that the chairs are damaged – they are now outside and not under cover.
I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s evidence that the chairs were outside on the veranda at the start of the tenancy – the landlord’s argument that because a green chair was on the veranda several years earlier, the cane chairs could not have been there is fanciful. The landlord would have no firsthand knowledge of where these chairs were when this tenancy began or their condition - because he was not there. Trevor did not give any evidence.
Cane will deteriorate when placed outside (even under a veranda) for a period and the chairs are now at least 6 years old. In the light of the age and original location of the chairs and the fact that the tenant says she told the landlord about the chairs deteriorating during the tenancy (the landlord provided no response to this) I find that the landlord has not proven that the damage is anything other than fair wear and tear.
The claim is dismissed.
In any event, I note that the landlord provided no evidence to support his claim for loss. Cane sofa and green chairs, quilt, sleeping bag and rug/blanket
The landlord says a cane sofa is missing. He says that two (green) chairs that matched the sofa were found in the shed along with other bits of green cane. I was told that their cushions are missing. He says he bought the items 5 years ago second hand. The landlord seeks $220 for replacement cost of the couch.
The landlord also says that a sleeping bag, quilt and woollen rug/blanket provided as part of “bedding” on the chattels list has also ended up outside damaged. The sums claimed by the landlord for the bedding respectively is $220, $300 and $80.
The cane sofa and chairs are said to be listed on the tenancy agreement as chattels and bedding is also referred to in a generic way.
The tenant says that Trevor came and took the couch. The tenant clarified during the course of the hearing that the green chairs were not in the house at the outset but were in one of the landlord’s outbuildings. The tenant says that Trevor also at this time took the double bed and bedding when the landlord was coming back from overseas. She says it was suggested at this time that the landlord would sleep in the sleepout but that was not permitted by the tenant who had concern for her children.
The landlord says he knows nothing about this conversation between the tenant and Trevor.
The tenant says that she thought the bedding was all taken by Trevor when he got the bed and cane sofa. She did not see the sleeping bag or quilt in the bedroom as claimed by the landlord and she does not know how they ended up outside. She does not recall the rug being in the cupboard or on the section, but it might have been there.
She referred to issues with Trevor’s trailer staying on the section throughout the tenancy.
I am satisfied that it is proven that the couch was at the premises at the start of the tenancy. It is not sufficiently clear if the green chairs were provided to the tenant – while the tenancy agreement refers to arm chairs they could equally have meant the chairs referred to above (those chairs above are otherwise not listed on the agreement yet were left at the house).
The difficulty I have now repeated several times in this decision is that the landlord does not know and cannot precisely say what was left in the property at the start of the tenancy or what was removed during it.
The landlord could offer nothing of substance in reply when faced with the tenant saying Trevor took the items. If Trevor had attended, he could have provided his view (if any). The fact he did not attend (despite me asking and encouraging the landlord to do so) leads me to infer that if he had given evidence, the evidence he would have given here would not support the landlord’s position.
I have carefully considered this, but I dismiss the claim in relation to the couch because the lack of clarity means that the landlord has not met the necessary burden of proof and the claim must be dismissed.
In any event, there is no probative evidence to support the loss claimed.
Turning to the bedding, the tenancy agreement does not specify the nature of the bedding. I do not consider it likely that Trevor took the sleeping bag, rug and quilt and then the items ended up in places across the tenant’s section unbeknown to her and simply remained there.
There was no explanation from the tenant as to how the items got there during the course of the tenancy if they had been taken by Trevor (or if they were not part of the bedding she was provided with).
I find it more likely than not that the tenant or someone the tenant is responsible for taking those items outside and leaving them there. By leaving them outside they have been intentionally damaged.
The sleeping bag and the quilt are however very personal items.
A sleeping bag which is left for tenants to use will very quickly depreciate and lose its value altogether. Here the sleeping bag was said to be 15 years old and left as part of a tenancy for various people to sleep in. I consider that it would have been fully depreciated and therefore decline to make an award in respect of this.
I consider that I cannot assess the value of the rug because no probative evidence was given on its value or condition at the start of the tenancy and no probative evidence is available to show replacement cost. Given its age it likely would have only had a nominal value, if any, in any event and I decline to make an award.
The small handmade quilt may be important sentimentally to the landlord but it is a very difficult item for a Tribunal to value such an item where there is no evidence as to loss or replacement value. Compensation is not based on how important an item is to someone but actual loss. Here there was no probative evidence of its value or evidence of its age and condition at the start of the tenancy and the sum sought is more than minimal. I therefore decline to make an award. Cleaning and rubbish removal claims
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) RTA. Rubbish
The landlord sought to add additional amounts to his application for rubbish disposal originally made for $45. There were no receipts to prove this (or any) amount and the tenant had not had notice of an increased claim.
The tenant agreed to pay $45 for rubbish disposal as claimed in the application by the landlord and the landlord agreed to this.
This is ordered by consent. Mattress
The landlord says that the tenant has damaged a mattress and claims for the cost of it needing to be cleaned. The mattress is a queen size mattress that was in a loft space that he says has been damaged because it is stained. I heard that the mattress was new in 2015 – so it is some 10 years old.
The mattress does not appear to be on the chattels list (because that only refers to a double mattress) although nothing turns on this.
The tenant says that her children did not use the loft area and she did not like using it either as it did not feel safe. She does not know where the marks came from. She did not see them there in the tenancy because she did not like going into the loft.
Given the lack of evidence about the condition of the mattress at the start of the tenancy either in the form of sufficiently detailed and reliable probative evidence or from oral evidence from Trevor, the landlord is unable to prove the condition of the mattress at the start of the tenancy and therefore I dismiss this claim.
In any event, the landlord has no evidence (no quote or invoice or otherwise) to support the sum claimed and therefore cannot in any event sufficiently prove loss. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims $110 to clean the carpet in the dining room and hall. He says they are stained. He has not yet had the work done but he says he plans to do so. The house is presently being occupied by himself.
I repeat that no pre tenancy photographs were taken for this tenancy and that the pre-entry inspection report has scant detail simply noting each room has fair wear and tear. The tenant says that the carpet did not look nice when she moved in with a lot of wear and tear.
There are some marks to the carpet as pictured in the photographs provided but given the lack of evidence relating to the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the landlord has shown that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
I also add that there is, in any event no evidence of loss as there is no quote or invoice at all and the landlord has not yet undertaken this work. It has been a few months since the landlord has moved in himself and the work has still not been done.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Missing stereo from sleep out
The landlord says a stereo is missing from his sleepout.
He says that the sleepout is not part of the tenancy agreement and the tenant agrees. The landlord says that the tenant and her partner used the sleepout at various points during the course of the tenancy with the tenant’s partner at one time showing him a tenancy agreement that was “fraudulent” trying to show him that the sleepout was part of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant does not deny that she accessed the sleep out and moved items belonging to the landlord out of it. She used the sleep out for extra space for family and friends, but she says that she has never seen the stereo.
This claim relates to an item the landlord says was taken from an area that was not part of the tenancy agreement.
This was the landlord’s own space reserved for his things. The tenant had no right to be in this area.
A tenant’s obligations under the RTA apply to the chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. This stereo was not provided for the tenant for their use if it was in the sleepout.
If a tenant breaks into a different premises, that he or she has no right to be in and removes chattels then this would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. This is because there is no landlord/tenant relationship in respect of those premises or items.
If this was not the case a tenant could be liable for returning chattels under the RTA to a landlord’s property that might be next door, three streets away or even in the next city. I find that the fact that the sleep out that was improperly entered is on the same section or near the tenanted area does not change this.
The claim is dismissed. This is not a claim arising out of the RTA. Landlord legal costs
The landlord seeks the costs of the legal advice he says he had to obtain during the course of the tenancy generally due to the tenant falling behind on her rent and then ultimately having to issue a notice to terminate the tenancy.
I consider that these costs are not recoverable from the tenant. They are the ordinary business costs incurred in running the business that is a tenancy. If the landlord choses to get legal advice that is his decision, but it is a cost that he must bear.
Even legal costs that are incurred in Tribunal hearings are limited in what can be recovered (see section 102 RTA).
In any event no probative evidence of loss (e.g. invoices) was provided. The claim is dismissed. The bond – Failure to lodge and return
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and compensation for a failure to lodge her bond with the Bond Centre within the required statutory period and seeks the return of the bond to her.
I accept that the bond was not lodged and paid to the Bond Centre within the required 23 working days (section 19, RTA). However, it was lodged by 15 March 2024.
The tenant did not lodge her application for exemplary damages in respect of this breach until 16 April 2025. That is over 12 months after the breach. The tenant is therefore barred from claiming exemplary damages for this breach by virtue of s109(2)(b) of the RTA ,which states that a party may not apply for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also seeks compensation stating that it caused her stress and asserting that it caused problems with WINZ helping her with her historic rent arrears.
She says that because WINZ could not see a bond having been paid, they refused to help. She says it resulted in the loss of her having custody of her son. The landlord questions this and asserts that at the time he was uncertain whether a tenancy agreement existed because of a disagreement between the parties about the tenancy.
A disagreement about the tenancy is not grounds to delay the lodging of the bond. If anything, it is an even greater reason to ensure that bond lodgement procedures are followed correctly. That said, I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently proven that the failure to lodge the bond had such an impact on her. The payments that WINZ/MSD did make to assist her with the arrears were paid a significant time after the bond had been lodged. There was no evidence to support the other claim that she made regarding her son.
I do not consider that the tenant has proven a loss and therefore dismiss this part of the claim.
I have ordered for the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the tenant given the outcome of this hearing. Suppression and filing fee
Neither party was substantially successful in their own claim. I therefore decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.
Both parties seek name suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A RTA).
I find that neither party has been substantially successful here and therefore I decline to award either party name suppression. I see no other grounds for awarding suppression. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public and weighing up the interests of the parties and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the parties’ interests. Final remarks
I am aware that after the hearing concluded the landlord sought to file additional documents with the Registry. Once the hearing has concluded no additional documents will be considered by the Tribunal. All relevant evidence must be presented at the hearing itself.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236241 — Property damage at 21 Fairfield Road, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236241 — Property damage at 21 Fairfield Road, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What sums are owed in relation to rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What sums are owed in relation to rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.