What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241073 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5241073?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,095.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241073?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12033589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241073 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5241073?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,095.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241073?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12033589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241073 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241073 — net $1,218.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet replacement (after depreciation	$1,095.30		Carpet replacement (after depreciation
Damage to hedge	$150.00		Damage to hedge
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,245.30	$27.00
Net award	$1,218.30
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,218.30

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,218.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,218.30 [The tenant/s]: $1,701.70

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2025.
The tenant rented the premises from 14 June 2019. On 20 April 2025 the tenant applied for refund of the bond of $2,920.00 following the end of the tenancy on 11 April 2025. The weekly rent by the end of the tenancy was $900.00.
The landlords have not brought a cross-application against the bond (as required by section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)) which is lodged at the Bond Centre. They do have a claim against the bond. The landlord opposed the tenant’s application on the basis that there was damage to the property at the end of the tenancy.
The dispute was about carpet replacement and damage to a hedge. Both parties had other grounds of complaint (for example, about cleaning and the Healthy Homes Standards) but I understood no formal claim about them was being made. I will say no more about those matters. Carpet Replacement
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.
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. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does, and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
The landlords said there were carpet stains which could not be removed by the professional carpet cleaning arranged by the tenant, and they had no option but to replace the carpets in three bedrooms and the study. They had spoken to their insurance company, who advised that each room would be assessed as a separate claim and would attract an excess of $2,500.00. In a letter dated 19 April 2025, the landlords said they had obtained quotes ranging from $3,285.90 to $3,858.39 for carpet replacement.
The landlords obtained a quote for replacement 26oz polyester carpet for $3,663.00. It would cost an additional $510.00 to upgrade to a 36oz carpet. They also provided an invoice dated 17 April 2025 for a 34oz nylon carpet for $3,285.90.
The tenant was concerned that the landlords were selling the property, and this was part of preparing the house for sale. He submitted that the damage was fair wear and tear and that the cost of replacing the carpet was a betterment to the landlord based on the carpet having a 10-year economic life. The carpet was about 8 years old at the end of the tenancy.
I understood that the original carpet was wool, and the replacement carpet is nylon. On the basis that the original carpet was of slightly superior quality, I adopt a useful economic life for the carpet of 12 years.
I find that the damage to the carpet was more than fair wear and tear, even considering the length of the tenancy. Some of the photographs show yellow and red stains, and nearly all the photographs show quite widespread dark discolouration. I find this was careless damage.
While still useable, I consider that the carpet was sufficiently damaged to justify replacement. The landlord said they would not have been able to re-let the premises otherwise. I acknowledge the tenant’s view that the light colour of the carpet may have caused stains to show up more easily. However, the ingoing inspection report dated 13 June 2019 shows the carpets in good condition, without the same discolouration that is visible in the April 2025 photographs.
Taking all this into account, and making an allowance for depreciation/betterment, I find that the tenant is liable to pay 1/3 of the cost of replacement. I award $1,095.30. Damage to Hedge
The landlords referred to damage to a row of 2m high hedge plants. The tenant had placed a storage shed on the lawn without permission, which caused part of the hedge to die back. In a letter to the tenant on 19 April 2025, the landlords said the cost to replace the six plants with similar-sized hedge plants ranged from $1,314.00 to $1,812.00. The tenant had replaced the plants at his own cost, although the new plants are currently perhaps only 30cm tall.
The landlords said they had lost the look of the backyard. It would take a few years for the hedge plants to grow. They noted that the hedge helped with sound reduction. They also said the replacement plants are of the same species but with narrow leaves not broadleaf. If the tenant had asked them, they would have advised the correct type of plant (the tenant said he was advised by the garden centre). The tenant had replaced 2m plants with much smaller trees. They had found a company online which had quoted $250.00 to $270.00 per plant (i.e., $1,500.00 for six).
The entry inspection report shows the hedge was well grown but below the fence line. At the end of the tenancy the trees were just above the fence line. The trees that needed replacing were in a corner of the garden in one area. A large tree was situated on the other side of the fence.
The tenant said the new plants would grow to match the original hedge and there had been no permanent loss or damage.
Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant agreed to keep the lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and not to damage or remove any tree, shrub, or bush.
When there is a breach of contract the object of damages is to compensate, not to punish. The measure of loss is that the claimant is to be placed, so far as money can do it, in as good a situation financially as if the contract had been performed. There is a general principle that the claimant cannot always insist on being placed in the same physical position as if the contract had been performed. An award of compensation must be linked to the loss sustained, and reasonableness is a factor to be considered in determining what the loss is (Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] 3 All ER 268, HL).
The damage was unintentional, however, in my view it was careless because it could have been foreseen that placing a shed next to the hedge might block the sunlight. At the same time, hedge plants do die back occasionally and must be replaced with smaller plants. The tenant could have purchased bigger trees up to 1m high, but it was not possible for him to purchase trees that were the same size as the hedge.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s loss is the cost of replacing the hedge plants with larger trees. The landlord’s loss has largely been compensated for by the tenant’s purchase of replacements. There is a physical difference between the hedge as it was and is now, but not a financial one. The reasonable measure of loss is not the cost of physically restoring the hedge to the same condition.
What the landlords have lost, I consider, is a sense of amenity or enjoyment while a relatively small part of the hedge re-grows, and any additional cost of caring for them. The new trees have been planted in a neat line in the corner, and the loss of aesthetic appeal is minimal. I also cannot see that there has been any real loss of privacy, given the high fence and the tree behind it.
It is difficult to assess the loss of amenity in money terms, but it is modest. I award general damages of $150.00. Filing Fee
The tenant has successfully recovered part of the bond. The landlords ought to have filed their own application, in which case they would also have incurred this fee. I reimburse the filing fee to the tenant.
Both parties requested suppression. This is granted on the basis that the privacy interest of the parties outweighs the public interest in open justice. The dispute was typical of the matters the Tribunal hears every day and the identity of the parties is superfluous.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241073 — net $1,218.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet replacement (after depreciation	$1,095.30		Carpet replacement (after depreciation
Damage to hedge	$150.00		Damage to hedge
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,245.30	$27.00
Net award	$1,218.30
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,218.30

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,218.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,218.30 [The tenant/s]: $1,701.70

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2025.
The tenant rented the premises from 14 June 2019. On 20 April 2025 the tenant applied for refund of the bond of $2,920.00 following the end of the tenancy on 11 April 2025. The weekly rent by the end of the tenancy was $900.00.
The landlords have not brought a cross-application against the bond (as required by section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)) which is lodged at the Bond Centre. They do have a claim against the bond. The landlord opposed the tenant’s application on the basis that there was damage to the property at the end of the tenancy.
The dispute was about carpet replacement and damage to a hedge. Both parties had other grounds of complaint (for example, about cleaning and the Healthy Homes Standards) but I understood no formal claim about them was being made. I will say no more about those matters. Carpet Replacement
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.
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. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does, and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
The landlords said there were carpet stains which could not be removed by the professional carpet cleaning arranged by the tenant, and they had no option but to replace the carpets in three bedrooms and the study. They had spoken to their insurance company, who advised that each room would be assessed as a separate claim and would attract an excess of $2,500.00. In a letter dated 19 April 2025, the landlords said they had obtained quotes ranging from $3,285.90 to $3,858.39 for carpet replacement.
The landlords obtained a quote for replacement 26oz polyester carpet for $3,663.00. It would cost an additional $510.00 to upgrade to a 36oz carpet. They also provided an invoice dated 17 April 2025 for a 34oz nylon carpet for $3,285.90.
The tenant was concerned that the landlords were selling the property, and this was part of preparing the house for sale. He submitted that the damage was fair wear and tear and that the cost of replacing the carpet was a betterment to the landlord based on the carpet having a 10-year economic life. The carpet was about 8 years old at the end of the tenancy.
I understood that the original carpet was wool, and the replacement carpet is nylon. On the basis that the original carpet was of slightly superior quality, I adopt a useful economic life for the carpet of 12 years.
I find that the damage to the carpet was more than fair wear and tear, even considering the length of the tenancy. Some of the photographs show yellow and red stains, and nearly all the photographs show quite widespread dark discolouration. I find this was careless damage.
While still useable, I consider that the carpet was sufficiently damaged to justify replacement. The landlord said they would not have been able to re-let the premises otherwise. I acknowledge the tenant’s view that the light colour of the carpet may have caused stains to show up more easily. However, the ingoing inspection report dated 13 June 2019 shows the carpets in good condition, without the same discolouration that is visible in the April 2025 photographs.
Taking all this into account, and making an allowance for depreciation/betterment, I find that the tenant is liable to pay 1/3 of the cost of replacement. I award $1,095.30. Damage to Hedge
The landlords referred to damage to a row of 2m high hedge plants. The tenant had placed a storage shed on the lawn without permission, which caused part of the hedge to die back. In a letter to the tenant on 19 April 2025, the landlords said the cost to replace the six plants with similar-sized hedge plants ranged from $1,314.00 to $1,812.00. The tenant had replaced the plants at his own cost, although the new plants are currently perhaps only 30cm tall.
The landlords said they had lost the look of the backyard. It would take a few years for the hedge plants to grow. They noted that the hedge helped with sound reduction. They also said the replacement plants are of the same species but with narrow leaves not broadleaf. If the tenant had asked them, they would have advised the correct type of plant (the tenant said he was advised by the garden centre). The tenant had replaced 2m plants with much smaller trees. They had found a company online which had quoted $250.00 to $270.00 per plant (i.e., $1,500.00 for six).
The entry inspection report shows the hedge was well grown but below the fence line. At the end of the tenancy the trees were just above the fence line. The trees that needed replacing were in a corner of the garden in one area. A large tree was situated on the other side of the fence.
The tenant said the new plants would grow to match the original hedge and there had been no permanent loss or damage.
Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant agreed to keep the lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and not to damage or remove any tree, shrub, or bush.
When there is a breach of contract the object of damages is to compensate, not to punish. The measure of loss is that the claimant is to be placed, so far as money can do it, in as good a situation financially as if the contract had been performed. There is a general principle that the claimant cannot always insist on being placed in the same physical position as if the contract had been performed. An award of compensation must be linked to the loss sustained, and reasonableness is a factor to be considered in determining what the loss is (Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] 3 All ER 268, HL).
The damage was unintentional, however, in my view it was careless because it could have been foreseen that placing a shed next to the hedge might block the sunlight. At the same time, hedge plants do die back occasionally and must be replaced with smaller plants. The tenant could have purchased bigger trees up to 1m high, but it was not possible for him to purchase trees that were the same size as the hedge.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s loss is the cost of replacing the hedge plants with larger trees. The landlord’s loss has largely been compensated for by the tenant’s purchase of replacements. There is a physical difference between the hedge as it was and is now, but not a financial one. The reasonable measure of loss is not the cost of physically restoring the hedge to the same condition.
What the landlords have lost, I consider, is a sense of amenity or enjoyment while a relatively small part of the hedge re-grows, and any additional cost of caring for them. The new trees have been planted in a neat line in the corner, and the loss of aesthetic appeal is minimal. I also cannot see that there has been any real loss of privacy, given the high fence and the tree behind it.
It is difficult to assess the loss of amenity in money terms, but it is modest. I award general damages of $150.00. Filing Fee
The tenant has successfully recovered part of the bond. The landlords ought to have filed their own application, in which case they would also have incurred this fee. I reimburse the filing fee to the tenant.
Both parties requested suppression. This is granted on the basis that the privacy interest of the parties outweighs the public interest in open justice. The dispute was typical of the matters the Tribunal hears every day and the identity of the parties is superfluous.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241073 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241073 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions