Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5240092 — Rent arrears at 22A George Deane Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632
Decided 12 January 2026 · Published 12 January 2026 · Application 5240092
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Henry
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,672.36
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,376.82
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $1,757.14 | Rent arrears | |
| Light bulbs | $24.00 | 65. The tenant is ordered to pay $24.00 for replacement light bulbs. | |
| Nominal damages for missing towel rail | $100.00 | Nominal damages for missing towel rail | |
| Nominal damages for paintwork | $200.00 | Nominal damages for paintwork | |
| Compensation for exterior paintwork | $1,150.00 | Compensation for exterior paintwork | |
| Unpaid water rates | $293.45 | Unpaid water rates | |
| Compensation for loss of amenity (ensuite | $93.71 | Compensation for loss of amenity (ensuite | |
| Reimbursement for fixed water rates | $1,054.06 | Reimbursement for fixed water rates | |
| Total award | $3,524.59 | $1,147.77 | |
| Net award | $2,376.82 | ||
| Bond | $2,960.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,376.82 |
Claims and awards for application 5240092 — net $2,376.82 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $1,757.14
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Light bulbs
- Amount
- $24.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 65. The tenant is ordered to pay $24.00 for replacement light bulbs.
Nominal damages for missing towel rail
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Nominal damages for missing towel rail
Nominal damages for paintwork
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Nominal damages for paintwork
Compensation for exterior paintwork
- Amount
- $1,150.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation for exterior paintwork
Unpaid water rates
- Amount
- $293.45
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Unpaid water rates
Compensation for loss of amenity (ensuite
- Amount
- $93.71
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation for loss of amenity (ensuite
Reimbursement for fixed water rates
- Amount
- $1,054.06
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Reimbursement for fixed water rates
Total award
Landlord $3,524.59 · Tenant $1,147.77
Net award
Landlord $2,376.82
Bond
Landlord $2,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,376.82
Dismissed claims
- Property Damage — Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in respect of the leak in the ensuite bathroom?
- Property Damage — The tenant’s claim for the replacement cost of the dishwasher is also dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the pr…
- Property Damage — The tenant’s claim for the cost to repair the oven door is also dismissed. D.
- Property Damage — 2 https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-businesses-and-organisations/types-of-business- expenses/depreciation, retrieved on 11 January
- The Cost Of The Waste Disposal Unit… — The tenant’s claim for the cost of the waste disposal unit is also dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the premi…
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Natalia King and Mark King are to pay Ben Vallings And Kumeu Taxation Trustee Co Limited As Trustees For Bowring Properties Group $2,376.82 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 (5384668-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Ben Vallings And Kumeu Taxation Trustee Co Limited As Trustees For Bowring Properties Group: $2,376.82 Natalia King and Mark King: $583.18
- The tenant’s claims that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and that the tenant was overcharged for water rates due to leaks at the premises are dismissed.
- The landlord’s claim that the tenant is responsible for damage to the carpet is dismissed.
Reasons
- This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place at North Shore District Court on 24 October 2025. There was not enough time to hear all of the claims, and the matter was adjourned to a telephone hearing on 20 November 2025. There was a further hearing via video link on 11 December 2025.
- Ms King attended the hearings and confirmed she had authority to speak for the other tenant, Mr King.
- Mr Vallings attended the hearing for the landlord and confirmed he had authority to speak for the landlord.
- The tenant’s father, Mr Ormsby, attended the first hearing as a witness for the tenant. The landlord’s employee, Ms Glidden, attended the third hearing as a witness for the landlord.
- This is a cross application. The tenant claims that the landlord has: a. Breached section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to: i. Provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of the walls and the carpet; ii. Maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of the: leak in the ensuite bathroom; the dishwasher; the waste disposal unit; the oven door; b. Charged for fixed water rates contrary to section 39 of the RTA; and c. Overcharged for water due to leaks at the premises.
- The tenant is seeking: a. Compensation for loss of amenity in respect of the ensuite bathroom; b. Reimbursement of the costs spent repairing / replacing broken appliances; c. Reimbursement of the fixed water charges paid and compensation for water charges due to leaks at the premises; d. Reimbursement of the filing fee; and e. Suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The landlord claims that the tenant has: a. Failed to pay rent and water rates in accordance with sections 39(3) and 40(1)(a) of the RTA and the tenancy agreement; b. Failed to replace worn light bulbs and removed a towel rail contrary to section 40(40)(1)(e)(v) of the RTA; c. Damaged the carpets, the interior walls and the exterior walls and is liable for this damage in accordance with section 49B of the RTA.
- The landlord is seeking: a. Rent arrears; b. Compensation for unpaid water rates; c. $2,000 being the insurance excess to replace the carpet; d. $4,600.00 to repair and paint the interior of the premises; e. $1,150.00 to repair and repaint the exterior of the premises; f. $24.00 for light bulb replacement; and g. $300 for a missing towel rail.
- The tenant had claimed for the last day’s rent. However, this claim was withdrawn during the hearing.
- The landlord had claimed that the tenant damaged a door handle and was seeking compensation for the repair costs. However, this claim was withdrawn during the hearing.
- During the hearing, the landlord requested, and the tenant agreed to an additional claim being added being removal of the towel rail in the bathroom. A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
- The tenant had listed in their application that the landlord was a limited company, Bowring Properties Limited. The landlord clarified at the first hearing that the landlord is Bowring Properties Group, a trust. This is consistent with he tenancy agreement and the landlord has provided trust documentation. The parties’ names updated to record the landlord as the trustees of the Bowring Properties Group.
- The most recent tenancy agreement between the parties was signed by the landlord on 03 March 2024. The landlord had stated in the landlord’s application that the tenant was Mr and Ms King and Michael Booth “as guarantor”. However, Michael Booth has not signed the agreement or the previous tenancy agreement. I am not satisfied that Mr Booth has agreed to guarantor the tenant’s obligations. Mr Booth has been removed as a tenant from the claim. B. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- 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”. The party bringing the application must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
- 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. C. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS: Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
- The tenant claims that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of the interior walls and the carpet and failed to maintain the premises in respect of [leak in ensuite bathroom, the dishwasher, the waste disposal unit and the oven door.
- Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA provides that the landlord shall: ... provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and...
- Tenants also have obligations under the RTA. One of these obligations arises where the tenant becomes aware of damage to or a need for a repair of the premises. In these circumstances, the tenant must tell the landlord straight away. Section 40(1)(d) of the RTA provides that the tenant must: Notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs.
- Generally, a landlord is only expected to investigate and repair a defect once it has been brought to its attention. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010, the District Court held: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
- The general position is that a landlord is not liable to pay for repairs to the premises made by the tenant without the landlord’s approval. There are exceptions to this rule; broadly the tenant is not liable for repairs where the disrepair could cause injury to people or property or is otherwise urgent. However, in most circumstances, the tenant must have given or made a reasonable attempt to give notice to the landlord of the need for repair. 1
Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
- The tenant says that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of holes in the walls and damaged and old carpet. The tenant said that the carpet was frayed and stained and that there were several marks and holes on the walls. The tenant’s witness said that he arrived at the premises on the first day of the tenancy and the carpet “wasn’t good”.
- The landlord says and I accept (see paragraph 90 below) that the carpet was laid in 2018.
- This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. I have reviewed the photographs from the start and the end of the tenancy provided by the landlord and the video footage provided by the tenant. I find that while the
- See section 45(1)(d) of the RTA and Goldman v Edwards Realty Ltd trading as Century 21 [2015] NZTT Manukau 1863 at [3]. carpet had some stains, it was in a reasonable condition when the tenant first moved into the premises in February 2021.
- I find that there were several marks and patches on the walls and that the house was due to be repainted. However, I consider this damage to be cosmetic.
- The tenant has not satisfied me that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair. This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in respect of the leak in the ensuite bathroom?
- The tenant says they were unable to use the bathroom from 14 November 2024 until the tenancy ended on 11 February 2025. The tenant is seeking compensation of $1200.00 for loss of amenity.
- The tenant said that in November 2024, they noticed that when they used the shower in the upstairs ensuite bathroom, water would leak through to the lights in the room below. The tenant sent a message to the landlord notifying him of the issue on 14 November 2024
- The plumber attended the premises on 18 November 2025. The landlord has provided the invoice from the plumber which states that he attended the premises to assess the issue and that he spent around 20 minutes trying to identify the leak. The invoice recorded that the plumber could not find the leak and did not notice any leaks during this time. The plumber recorded that he asked the tenant to record the leak the next time it happens, notify the landlord and he would come straight back.
- The tenant said the leak continued after the plumber visited and they were unable to use the bathroom. The tenant said they did not tell the landlord that that the ensuite continued to leak after the plumber’s visits because they had already told him about the issue, and he had a pattern of not dealing with their complaints.
- In this case, I find that once the landlord was notified about the leak, he took reasonable steps to arrange for the issue to be assessed. After the plumber visited the premises, the landlord believed that the plumber could not find a leak and the tenant had been told by the plumber that if it happened again, she should record it and notify the landlord.
- The landlord was entitled to assume that this issue was resolved unless he heard further from the tenant. He did not do so.
- The tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in respect of the leak in the ensuite bathroom is dismissed.
- However, that is not the end of the matter. The tenant has claimed for a loss of amenity for the period they were unable to use the ensuite bathroom. The tenant did suffer a loss of amenity for of period of 4 days the tenant notified the landlord of the issue until the plumber visited the premises. For those days the tenant did not get what they had contracted for. I accept that not being able to use the ensuite bathroom would have been an inconvenience for the tenant and award $93.71 being 20% of the rent for 4 days as loss of amenity.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in respect of the dishwasher?
- The tenant said that on or about 27 December 2023, they noticed that the dishwasher would not drain and did not work for some cycles. The tenant said that they telephoned the landlord and told him about the issue. The tenant said that the landlord asked them to check if it was blocked and to look under the sink to see if it was turned on.
- The tenant said they did so, and it looked ok, and she called the landlord again to send someone to repair the dishwasher. The tenant said she could not recall the landlord’s response during that call but said they waited 6 weeks, and nothing was done about the dishwasher. On 07 February 2024,and the tenant had the dishwasher replaced.
- The landlord said that he was not notified of any issues with the dishwasher and the first time he became aware that the tenant had replaced the dishwasher was after the tenancy ended.
- The tenant has confirmed that they did not notify the landlord that they were going to replace the dishwasher and there was no written correspondence regarding the issue.
- The tenant said she told the landlord about the issue and the landlord said she did not. There is no written correspondence to support the tenant’s claim that the she told the landlord about the issue. This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. I am not satisfied that that landlord was aware that the dishwasher needed to be repaired / replaced.
- As set out above, the landlord’s obligation under section 45(1) if the RTA is once the landlord becomes aware of an issue to investigate it and, if necessary, to repair within a reasonable period of time. This was not an urgent situation; there was no risk of injury to person or property and the tenant was not justified in having the repairs / replacement done without the landlord’s approval. (See paragraph 21 above.)
- The tenant says that it was reasonable for them to carry out repairs and/or replace appliances because the landlord was an absent landlord and did not respond to their queries within a reasonable period of time.
- The tenant says that the landlord did not carry out any inspections within the four-year period they had possession of the premises. The landlord’s obligations to the tenant are set out in the RTA. While it is certainly prudent to carry out regularly inspections of the premises, a landlord has a right but not an obligation to carry out repairs under the RTA.
- The tenant provided examples of emails where the tenant believes the landlord has failed to respond within a reasonable period of time. Having reviewed those emails, I am not satisfied that they are evidence that the landlord had a pattern of failing to respond to the tenant.
- The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the dishwasher is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for the replacement cost of the dishwasher is also dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises in respect of the waste disposal unit?
- The tenant said that the waste disposal unit needed to be replaced, that they replaced it during the tenancy and are claiming $299 for the replacement cost of a waste disposal unit and further sums for attendance by a contractor and installation of the unit.
- The tenant said they first noticed that the waste disposal unit was broken on 24 January 2024. The tenant said they telephoned the landlord, advised him of the issue and asked him to send someone to check it. The tenant said the landlord did not send someone to check the unit and they had it replaced it in February 2024.
- The landlord denies there was any communication about the waste disposal unit. The landlord said if they had been made aware of the issue, he would have sent their repairman to fix it. The landlord said that they have 10 properties and received a discounted rate for repairs.
- The tenant was asked during the hearing why they waited so long to seek reimbursement of the costs of the waste disposal unit from the landlord. The tenant said that they had not intended to claim for this cost initially and only did so when they became aware the landlord was claiming against them for damage to the premises.
- This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. I accept that the tenant had the waste disposal unit replaced. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord was notified of the issue. This was not an urgent situation, and the tenant was not justified in having the unit repaired or replaced without the landlord’s approval.
- The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the waste disposal unit is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for the cost of the waste disposal unit is also dismissed. Did the landlord breach section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises in respect of the oven door?
- The tenant said that the oven door shattered and that they had it repaired. The tenant is claiming this cost. The tenant said she did not notify the landlord of the issue. She said by that point the landlord had not responded to the other repair issues and she decided to replace the oven door themselves.
- As set out above, a landlord cannot be expected to investigate or repair an issue if the landlord is not aware of it.
- I find that the tenant did not notify the landlord of the issue. While a shattered oven door does need to be replaced, there is no reason why the landlord could not have been notified of the issue and given a reasonable period of time to repair it. The claim that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the oven door is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for the cost to repair the oven door is also dismissed. D. THE LANDLORD’S CLAIMS:
How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?
- The landlord has provided a rent ledger showing that the tenant owes $1757.14 in rent arrears. The tenant does not dispute that this sum is due, but it is asking for it to be set out against the bond.
- I am concerned that the tenant has not paid the rent due. The tenant has an obligation under section 40(1)(a) of the RTA and the tenancy agreement to pay the rent as it falls due. The bond is security for the landlord. A tenant should not assume that rent arrears can be set off against the bond without the landlord’s agreement. By failing to pay the rent, the tenant has breached section 40(1)(a) of the RTA.
- The landlord is awarded rent arrears of $1,757.14.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord claims that the tenant failed to replace the lightbulbs and is claiming $24.00 as compensation.
- During the hearing the tenant said that she had removed the towel rail which was broken. This was not one of the landlord’s claims in the landlord’s application. The tenant agreed to the claim being heard. The landlord raised the issue that the removal of the towel rail may have damaged the electricity connection. After I explained to the landlord that we would not be able to resolve that issue during the hearing and suggested this claim be brought as a separate application, the landlord said he wanted the claim to be heard and to restrict it to the cost of towel rail. The landlord said it would cost around $300 to replace the towel rail.
- The tenant said the towel rail did not work.
- If the towel rail was not working, the tenant had an obligation under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA to notify the landlord. The tenant did not do so. The tenant should not have removed the towel. The tenant failed in their obligation to leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
- The towel rail has not been replaced by the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord will replace the towel rail or that the cost to replace it would be $300.00. For these reasons, I award nominal damages of $100.00 for the towel rail.
- The landlord is claiming $24 for replacement light bulbs. The tenant said she should not have to pay this because when she moved into the premises there were bulbs missing. The tenant said they replaced those lightbulbs and did not raise it with the landlord because of the small cost involved.
- I am satisfied that the landlord did incur $24 for replacement light bulbs. As the tenant did not raise her concerns regarding the light bulbs with the landlord at the start of the tenancy, I do find this to be a reason why the tenant should not be responsible for the replacement lightbulbs.
- The tenant is ordered to pay $24.00 for replacement light bulbs.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
- Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
- Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
- Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
- 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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the interior paintwork; damage to the exterior paintwork; and damage to the carpet.
Is the tenant liable for costs to repaint the interior of the premises?
- The parties agree that the tenant patched and repainted areas in the interior of the premises and that this was done without the landlord’s knowledge or approval.
- The tenant says that this work was an improvement to the premises. The tenant’s witness, Mr Ormsby, says that due to this work, the premises looked better at the end of the tenancy that at the start.
- The landlord disagrees and says that the paint used by the tenant did not match the walls and amounted to damage to the walls.
- The landlord has provided an invoice which shows that at the end of the tenancy, the landlord paid $10,003.95 for the interior of the premises to be painted. The landlord is claiming $4,600 of this amount which they say is the cost to repaint the areas patched and painted by the tenant.
- The tenant did not have permission to patch and paint the walls. I agree with the landlord that in doing so the tenant has caused some damage to the walls. However, the issue for the landlord is that the walls were due to be repainted. When awarding costs for damage caused by the tenant, I must consider betterment and depreciation.
- Betterment refers to a situation where the repair or replacement of damaged property results in the owner being left in a better position than they were before the damage occurred. An example of this is where a tenant damages a 10 year old fridge and the landlord replaces it with a brand new fridge, the landlord is receiving something better than what was lost.
- The goal of damages is compensation, not improvement. A party should be put back into the position they were in before the loss, not a better one.
- The photographs from the start of the tenancy show that the premises was due to be repainted. The landlord says that this does not mean the tenant was free to do what they like to the wall. I agree. However, I am not persuaded that the tenant’s repatch / paintwork increased the cost to the landlord. I consider that that at the end of the tenancy the premises were well overdue to be repainted and that the cost to repaint would have been incurred regardless of the tenant’s actions.
- For this reason, I do not consider that it is appropriate to award any part of the repaint costs. However, to reflect that the tenant should not have patched the paintwork without first obtaining the landlord’s permission, I award nominal damages of $200.00.
Is the tenant liable for the cost of repainting the damaged exterior paintwork?
- The landlord said that the tenant caused a hole in the exterior paintwork. The tenant did not dispute this and said this was caused by attaching a fence to the exterior wall. The landlord said that the tenant made attempts to repair the hole but they do not match. The landlord says that the repair costs were xyz because the paintwork had to include waterproofing to maintain the integrity of the existing paintwork
- The tenant says that they should not be liable for waterproofing costs because they do not believe that there was waterproofing on the walls prior to the damage being caused.
- The landlord has provided an invoice from 2020 when the house was painted which states that the work was to: Re paint house with elastomeric paint for waterproofing (if any penetrations are made then must be repainted with the same paint.
- I accept that the waterproofing was necessary to protect the integrity of the current paintwork and award $1,150.00 for the repairs.
Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess for the claim to replace the carpet?
- The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $2,000.00 (4 claims with an excess of $500 per claim) for the carpet.
- The landlord refers to several stains on the carpet. The difficulty for the landlord is that they cannot say for certain which stains were caused during the tenancy. The tenant says that they may have been responsible for one of the stains but cannot recall how it occurred.
- This is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof. The landlord did provide photographs of the premises taken shortly before the start of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged that the pre tenancy photographs did not show all of the areas where he is now claiming the tenant caused damage.
- The landlord says it was necessary to replace the whole carpet because the carpet had been discontinued.
- The parties disagreed about the age of the carpet. The landlord has provided documentation from a flooring company showing that a sum of around $6500 was due on 03 September 2018. This document references the address of the premises.
- I am satisfied that the carpet was replaced in 2018. Given that the documentation does not state the exact date the carpet was laid and there is likely to have been at least a few weeks between when the carpet was laid and payment was due, I find that the carpet was laid on or about 01 August 2018. The tenancy ended on 11 February 2025 meaning that the carpet was around
- 5 years old.
- I am not satisfied on the evidence presented to me that the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy. Even if I was satisfied that one or more of the stains on the carpet was caused during the tenancy, I would not have awarded the sum sought by the landlord and any sum awarded would have been nominal. This is because, as set out above, I must take into account, betterment and depreciation. Inland Revenue’s guidance on depreciation General Depreciation Rates IR265, July 2025 provides that carpets in residential tenancies have a 5-year useful lifespan. 2 The carpet was past its useful lifespan.
- The landlord’s claim for the insurance excess for the claim to replace the carpet is dismissed. 2 https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-businesses-and-organisations/types-of-business- expenses/depreciation, retrieved on 11 January 2026. E. THE PARTIES’ CLAIMS IN RELATION TO WATER RATES:
How much is the landlord liable to pay the tenant for fixed water charges?
- The water for the premises and another unit is charged on one invoice. The units have separate water metres, and the consumption charges are separated in the invoices. In advance of the second hearing, the landlord provided a spreadsheet showing the sums charged and paid for water, and the amount of the fixed charges.
- Section 39(1) of the RTA provides that: ... the landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and (b) are incurred for common facilities.
- For water rates, this means that the landlord is responsible for the fixed water charges. The parties agree that the tenant has paid for fixed water charges. The landlord said this was an administrative error.
- The spreadsheet provided by the landlord shows that the sum owing to the tenant for fixed water charges is $1,054.06. The tenant said she did not dispute the landlord’s calculations.
- I award $1,054.06 to the tenant for sums paid in fixed water charges.
How much does the tenant owe the landlord for unpaid water rates?
- The landlord claims that the tenant owes $293.45 in unpaid water consumption rates.
- The tenant said that she is not disputing the landlord’s calculations but challenges the amount the tenant has been charged for water on two grounds: that there was an error on Watercare’s behalf as the charges for the premises and the unit behind did not make sense; and that there should be a reduction in the water charges because the tenant believes they were overcharged for water due to leaks.
- The landlord said that the reason the water rates increased was because of an increase in Watercare’s unit rate.
- The tenant provided a text message from the landlord of 12 February 2025 saying that the water usage may be because of the toilet leaking. The landlord did not dispute that he sent that text but said that he cannot be expected to ascertain when the toilet was leaking, if he was notified of the leak and if he took steps to remedy the issue. The landlord was offered an opportunity to provide further evidence regarding the toilet leak, i.e. when it was first reported and what steps were taken to remedy the situation. The landlord said it was not reasonable for him to find this information.
- I can see that the water charges for the last four invoices were approximately 25% higher than the charges for the similar period the previous year were approximately 25% greater. It also appears that the rates charged by Watercare had increased by a similar amount.
- I am not satisfied that there was the tenant was charged additional water rates due to a leak.
- I am also not satisfied that the Watercare invoices were incorrect.
- I find that the tenant owed $293.45 for unpaid water rates. F. SUPPRESSION AND THE FILING FEE:
- While both parties have had some success with their claims, I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful with their claims. For this reason, I decline to order reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and I decline the tenant’s application for suppression of their name and identifying details.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s14, s39, s39(1), s39(3), s40(1), s40(2), s40(40), s45, s45(1), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240092?
The tribunal order states: Natalia King and Mark King are to pay Ben Vallings And Kumeu Taxation
How much money was awarded in case 5240092?
Compensation: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $93.71 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,757.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $293.45 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,054.06 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240092?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240092?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12925581-Tribunal_Order.pdf.