What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241458 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $18,488.61 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5241458?

Cleaning: $595.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,059.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Furniture Removal: $789.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Controller: $155.32 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5121348 D…: $4,430.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $426.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $384.72 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,748.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $98.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,122.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,812.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish / Trampoline Removal: $350.90 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $489.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241458?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241458?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12613111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241458 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $18,488.61 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5241458?

Cleaning: $595.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,059.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Furniture Removal: $789.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Controller: $155.32 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5121348 D…: $4,430.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $426.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $384.72 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,748.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $98.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,122.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,812.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish / Trampoline Removal: $350.90 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $489.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241458?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241458?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12613111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241458 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241458 — net $18,488.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5121348 dated 11/03/2025	$4,430.39	Previous order application 5121348 dated 11/03/2025
Oven replacement	$426.00	Oven replacement
Skip bin hire	$489.41	Skip bin hire
Furniture removal	$789.00	Furniture removal
Lock/key replacement	$384.72	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,059.45	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$595.00	Carpet Cleaning
Paint and plaster repairs	$6,748.20	Paint and plaster repairs
Curtain repairs	$98.90	Curtain repairs
Building repairs	$1,122.27	Building repairs
Heat pump controller	$155.32	Heat pump controller
Water pump replacement	$1,812.05	Water pump replacement
Rubbish / Trampoline removal	$350.90	Rubbish / Trampoline removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,488.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,488.61

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $18,488.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5121348 dated 11/03/2025 $4,430.39 Oven replacement$426.00 Skip bin hire$489.41 Furniture removal$789.00 Lock/key replacement$384.72 Cleaning$1,059.45 Carpet Cleaning$595.00 Paint and plaster repairs$6,748.20 Curtain repairs$98.90 Building repairs$1,122.27 Heat pump controller$155.32 Water pump replacement$1,812.05 Rubbish / Trampoline removal$350.90 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$18,488.61 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$18,488.61
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 11 March 2025 under application 5121348.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, but the landlord seeks a range of compensation from the tenant as below.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore, I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence. I note that the tenant has been in contact with the Tribunal in relation to this application, so I am satisfied that notification of the application and hearing are likely to have reached her.

BACKGROUND

The house was a new build in 2021.
This tenancy commenced on 11 June 2023. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s], and the co-landlords are [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s].
The landlord states that during the tenancy, rent payments stopped, and the premises were damaged.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of rent arrears. From that application, the Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy, and that the tenant pay rent arrears and window repairs. After the bond release to the landlord, the tenant was ordered to pay the landlord $4,430.39. That order is application 5121348, being an order dated 11 March 2025.
After taking possession of the premises, the landlord now returns with a second application in relation to compensation at the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider the landlords claims in turn. Claim 1 – Damage claims
With any compensation claim, to receive an order, the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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, 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 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 when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Oven. The landlord claims compensation for a damaged oven. The landlord states, with reference to a photograph, that the door of the oven had been broken, appearing as if someone had stood on the door. The door was bent and glass broken. In support of the claim the landlord has provided an email from Newbolds from 6 March 2025, advising that the oven could not be repaired “as a considerable amount of weight was dropped causing failure of the door hinges. Making the unit unrepairable”. The landlord has claimed $568.00 for the replacement of the oven.
I am satisfied this damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability. I consider from the evidence available that this damage is likely to be intentional damage. I find the tenant must be liable for the replacement cost. However, given the age of the oven at the end of the tenancy, I must apply a depreciation. I consider a 25% reduction to take account of depreciation would be reasonable, so the tenant is ordered to pay $426.00 for this damage.
Walls. The landlord stated that at the end of the tenancy, there was extensive damage around all walls in the house. The plasterboard walls had multiple small areas of damage which resulted in dents or missing paint, and this was a problem throughout the house. The landlord engaged a painter and decorator to plaster and repaint the walls. The landlord states that the previous tenant had left the premises in good condition. The cost for this work was invoiced to the landlord at $8,997.60.
I have taken account of the photographs, which I agree show widespread and multiple areas of damage, which reflect damage well beyond what would be fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for this claim. Taking into account the extent of the damage, I consider the damage is likely to represent intentional damage given the approach in Guo as noted above. Again, I must apply depreciation, and also consider a 25% reduction would be reasonable, meaning the tenant is liable for repair costs to the sum of $6,748.20.
Curtains. The landlord states that the curtains were damaged at the end of the tenancy; they were ripped and there were stains on the curtains. The cost to get these repaired was $98.90.
I am satisfied that this damage is not fair wear and tear given the extent of the damage. The landlord has not replaced the curtains, but had them repaired, and I find the tenant is liable for the full cost of that repair.
Building repairs. This work was required to undertake a range of repairs, such as repairing an: a. A kitchen drawer face pulled off b. Damaged to decking c. Shelf supporting the laundry was removed d. Toilet roll holders pulled off e. Damaged door hardware f. Damaged shed g. Damaged electrical sockets
The landlord claims $1,122.27 being the invoiced amount from Wright Brothers Building Limited to undertake the repairs and for materials.
I am not persuaded that any of the claimed damage would be fair wear and tear, or maintenance. The tenant has not disproven liability. Given the damage, I accept it is either careless or intentional damage, meaning the tenant is liable for the repair costs. I do not consider that depreciation would be required, so the tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Claim 2 – Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Skip bin hire. The landlord seeks the cost for two skip bins that were required for the removal of rubbish. The cost claimed is $489.40.
I am satisfied there was extensive rubbish on the premises left by the tenant, so the tenant must be liable for the full cost of the skip bin hire.
Cleaning. The landlord states that the premises were very dirty at the end of the tenancy. Commercial cleaners were engaged from Wairarapa Dream Clean, to the sum of $1,059.45.
The photographs established that the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The invoice from the cleaning company is detailed, setting out the work that was required, and I am satisfied that likely represents work undertaken to get the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. I find the tenant is liable for the full cost of the cleaning work.
Carpet cleaning. The landlord states that carpets were dirty at the end of the tenancy, and to get rid of the stains and odour from the carpets. The cost for the carpet cleaning, ChemDry, was $595.00.
I am also satisfied that the carpets were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. The invoice from the carpet cleaners records that there were multiple stains treated throughout the house, some of which could not be removed. The tenant must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost.
Rubbish and trampoline removal. The landlord states that the trampoline was not removed so needed to be broken down to be removed, and that there was a range or other rubbish such as road signs and cones including a drum of ash. The landlord is claiming $350.90, which was the cost paid to the lawn mower operator to do that work.
Again the tenant must remove all rubbish and goods, and if they don’t, then they will be liable for the cost for the respective removal. This claim relates to goods and rubbish that were removed by the lawnmowing company, and an invoice has been provided, and I find the landlord liable for those charges.
Furniture removal. The landlord states that the tenant did not remove all her goods, and found, following termination, that the tenant had goods left on the premises. The landlord states that the tenant requested the landlord to move her goods, which the landlord assisted with. The landlord incurred costs of $782.00 from ProMovers to take the goods from the tenancy to the tenants new premises.
The landlord has incurred costs removing the tenant’s goods following the end of the tenancy, so the tenant is liable for those costs. Claim 3 - Locks
The landlord states that the locks were changed. The landlord states that the tenant did not return all the keys at the end of the tenancy, so he had the locks replaced. The cost to change the locks was $384.72
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. I am satisfied that not all keys were returned, so the landlord acted reasonably in having the locks changed. The tenant must be liable for those charges. Claim 4 – Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
Heat pump. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the controller for the heat pump was missing. The landlord states that the cost to replace this was $155.32.
I accept that the heat pump remote was not left on the premises at the end of the tenancy, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost.
Water pump. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the water pump was missing. The replacement cost for the pump was $1,812.05.
I also accept that the water pump was missing at the end of the tenancy, there was no evidence from the tenant as to what happened to it, so I find she must be liable for the replacement cost. Claim 5 – Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in the claim, the tenant must pay the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding. Previous order
As noted above, the Tribunal has made a previous order in relation to rent arrears, and a window repair. That money has not been paid by the tenant as ordered. The landlord has not enforced that order, so that amount ordered on 11 March 2025, is combined into this current order for enforcement purposes.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241458 — net $18,488.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5121348 dated 11/03/2025	$4,430.39	Previous order application 5121348 dated 11/03/2025
Oven replacement	$426.00	Oven replacement
Skip bin hire	$489.41	Skip bin hire
Furniture removal	$789.00	Furniture removal
Lock/key replacement	$384.72	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,059.45	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$595.00	Carpet Cleaning
Paint and plaster repairs	$6,748.20	Paint and plaster repairs
Curtain repairs	$98.90	Curtain repairs
Building repairs	$1,122.27	Building repairs
Heat pump controller	$155.32	Heat pump controller
Water pump replacement	$1,812.05	Water pump replacement
Rubbish / Trampoline removal	$350.90	Rubbish / Trampoline removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,488.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,488.61

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $18,488.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5121348 dated 11/03/2025 $4,430.39 Oven replacement$426.00 Skip bin hire$489.41 Furniture removal$789.00 Lock/key replacement$384.72 Cleaning$1,059.45 Carpet Cleaning$595.00 Paint and plaster repairs$6,748.20 Curtain repairs$98.90 Building repairs$1,122.27 Heat pump controller$155.32 Water pump replacement$1,812.05 Rubbish / Trampoline removal$350.90 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$18,488.61 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$18,488.61
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 11 March 2025 under application 5121348.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, but the landlord seeks a range of compensation from the tenant as below.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore, I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence. I note that the tenant has been in contact with the Tribunal in relation to this application, so I am satisfied that notification of the application and hearing are likely to have reached her.

BACKGROUND

The house was a new build in 2021.
This tenancy commenced on 11 June 2023. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s], and the co-landlords are [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s].
The landlord states that during the tenancy, rent payments stopped, and the premises were damaged.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of rent arrears. From that application, the Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy, and that the tenant pay rent arrears and window repairs. After the bond release to the landlord, the tenant was ordered to pay the landlord $4,430.39. That order is application 5121348, being an order dated 11 March 2025.
After taking possession of the premises, the landlord now returns with a second application in relation to compensation at the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider the landlords claims in turn. Claim 1 – Damage claims
With any compensation claim, to receive an order, the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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, 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 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 when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Oven. The landlord claims compensation for a damaged oven. The landlord states, with reference to a photograph, that the door of the oven had been broken, appearing as if someone had stood on the door. The door was bent and glass broken. In support of the claim the landlord has provided an email from Newbolds from 6 March 2025, advising that the oven could not be repaired “as a considerable amount of weight was dropped causing failure of the door hinges. Making the unit unrepairable”. The landlord has claimed $568.00 for the replacement of the oven.
I am satisfied this damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability. I consider from the evidence available that this damage is likely to be intentional damage. I find the tenant must be liable for the replacement cost. However, given the age of the oven at the end of the tenancy, I must apply a depreciation. I consider a 25% reduction to take account of depreciation would be reasonable, so the tenant is ordered to pay $426.00 for this damage.
Walls. The landlord stated that at the end of the tenancy, there was extensive damage around all walls in the house. The plasterboard walls had multiple small areas of damage which resulted in dents or missing paint, and this was a problem throughout the house. The landlord engaged a painter and decorator to plaster and repaint the walls. The landlord states that the previous tenant had left the premises in good condition. The cost for this work was invoiced to the landlord at $8,997.60.
I have taken account of the photographs, which I agree show widespread and multiple areas of damage, which reflect damage well beyond what would be fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for this claim. Taking into account the extent of the damage, I consider the damage is likely to represent intentional damage given the approach in Guo as noted above. Again, I must apply depreciation, and also consider a 25% reduction would be reasonable, meaning the tenant is liable for repair costs to the sum of $6,748.20.
Curtains. The landlord states that the curtains were damaged at the end of the tenancy; they were ripped and there were stains on the curtains. The cost to get these repaired was $98.90.
I am satisfied that this damage is not fair wear and tear given the extent of the damage. The landlord has not replaced the curtains, but had them repaired, and I find the tenant is liable for the full cost of that repair.
Building repairs. This work was required to undertake a range of repairs, such as repairing an: a. A kitchen drawer face pulled off b. Damaged to decking c. Shelf supporting the laundry was removed d. Toilet roll holders pulled off e. Damaged door hardware f. Damaged shed g. Damaged electrical sockets
The landlord claims $1,122.27 being the invoiced amount from Wright Brothers Building Limited to undertake the repairs and for materials.
I am not persuaded that any of the claimed damage would be fair wear and tear, or maintenance. The tenant has not disproven liability. Given the damage, I accept it is either careless or intentional damage, meaning the tenant is liable for the repair costs. I do not consider that depreciation would be required, so the tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Claim 2 – Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Skip bin hire. The landlord seeks the cost for two skip bins that were required for the removal of rubbish. The cost claimed is $489.40.
I am satisfied there was extensive rubbish on the premises left by the tenant, so the tenant must be liable for the full cost of the skip bin hire.
Cleaning. The landlord states that the premises were very dirty at the end of the tenancy. Commercial cleaners were engaged from Wairarapa Dream Clean, to the sum of $1,059.45.
The photographs established that the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The invoice from the cleaning company is detailed, setting out the work that was required, and I am satisfied that likely represents work undertaken to get the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. I find the tenant is liable for the full cost of the cleaning work.
Carpet cleaning. The landlord states that carpets were dirty at the end of the tenancy, and to get rid of the stains and odour from the carpets. The cost for the carpet cleaning, ChemDry, was $595.00.
I am also satisfied that the carpets were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. The invoice from the carpet cleaners records that there were multiple stains treated throughout the house, some of which could not be removed. The tenant must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost.
Rubbish and trampoline removal. The landlord states that the trampoline was not removed so needed to be broken down to be removed, and that there was a range or other rubbish such as road signs and cones including a drum of ash. The landlord is claiming $350.90, which was the cost paid to the lawn mower operator to do that work.
Again the tenant must remove all rubbish and goods, and if they don’t, then they will be liable for the cost for the respective removal. This claim relates to goods and rubbish that were removed by the lawnmowing company, and an invoice has been provided, and I find the landlord liable for those charges.
Furniture removal. The landlord states that the tenant did not remove all her goods, and found, following termination, that the tenant had goods left on the premises. The landlord states that the tenant requested the landlord to move her goods, which the landlord assisted with. The landlord incurred costs of $782.00 from ProMovers to take the goods from the tenancy to the tenants new premises.
The landlord has incurred costs removing the tenant’s goods following the end of the tenancy, so the tenant is liable for those costs. Claim 3 - Locks
The landlord states that the locks were changed. The landlord states that the tenant did not return all the keys at the end of the tenancy, so he had the locks replaced. The cost to change the locks was $384.72
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. I am satisfied that not all keys were returned, so the landlord acted reasonably in having the locks changed. The tenant must be liable for those charges. Claim 4 – Missing chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
Heat pump. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the controller for the heat pump was missing. The landlord states that the cost to replace this was $155.32.
I accept that the heat pump remote was not left on the premises at the end of the tenancy, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost.
Water pump. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the water pump was missing. The replacement cost for the pump was $1,812.05.
I also accept that the water pump was missing at the end of the tenancy, there was no evidence from the tenant as to what happened to it, so I find she must be liable for the replacement cost. Claim 5 – Filing fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful in the claim, the tenant must pay the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding. Previous order
As noted above, the Tribunal has made a previous order in relation to rent arrears, and a window repair. That money has not been paid by the tenant as ordered. The landlord has not enforced that order, so that amount ordered on 11 March 2025, is combined into this current order for enforcement purposes.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241458 — Property damage at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241458 — Property damage at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions