What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253119 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 5253119?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rental Income: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Washing Machine: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,742.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253119?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12556576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253119 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 5253119?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rental Income: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Washing Machine: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,742.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253119?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12556576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5253119 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253119 — net $6,894.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 June 2025	$3,742.85	Rent arrears to 14 June 2025
Cleaning	$1,200.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$575.00	Lock/key replacement
Missing washing machine	$750.00	Missing washing machine
Damage to carpet	$400.00	Damage to carpet
Damage to wooden floor	$400.00	Damage to wooden floor
Loss of rental income	$1,650.00	Loss of rental income
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,894.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,894.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jason John Withers must pay [The landlord/s] $6,744.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy from 14 June 2024 to 14 June 2025. Before the expiry of the fixed term the landlord served a valid notice on the tenant of his intention not to continue with the tenancy.
The tenancy premises is a two level unit in a 15 unit complex. It consists of two bedrooms, one bathroom, an open plan kitchen/dining/living area and a garage. The landlord purchased the unit at the start of the tenancy with the tenant in occupation. The landlord and tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy for one year.
There were 2 dogs at the premises. The dogs had puppies. The landlord served a 14 day notice requiring the dogs not to be at the premises. The puppies were removed but the dogs remained. On taking possession of the premises at the expiry of the tenancy the landlord found the property was not reasonably clean and tidy, that damage had occurred, and the washing machine was missing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as $3,742.85.
For clarity, the rent summary records the correct amount paid by the tenant during the tenancy ($25,250.00). However the payments recorded on and after 15 April 2025 are incorrect, and should correctly read $400.00 paid on 15 April and $1,200 paid on 9 May.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s photographs taken on 16 June 2025 establish that the tenant had made little, if any, attempt to clean the property.
The landlord claims $2,300 for cleaning. This cost includes taking all boxed and bagged rubbish in the unit to the garage. I find this cost is more than is reasonable for the work required based on the photographs presented and the size of the unit. In making this finding I acknowledge that significant cleaning was required and that the work included gathering and bagging rubbish from inside the premises, however find $1,200.00, consisting of 2 people working for 2 days at 8 hours/day @ $37.50/hr is reasonable to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The amount claimed for rubbish ($505.08) is reasonable and proven.
The evidence establishes that carpet was significantly soiled with dog urine and faeces and had a strongly unpleasant odour. There was bags and boxes of rubbish throughout the premises, including food waste. The kitchen had food on the floor and other surfaces; food was left in the fridge in the kitchen and the two fridges left in the garage. Curtains and blinds were dirty. The deck was dirty and was covered in soil and dog faeces. Personal belongings including furniture were left in the premises.
Overall I am satisfied that the carpet required cleaning so that other work, including cleaning work, could be carried out without a health and safety risk. The landlord carried out the carpet cleaning and has claimed $850.00 on the basis the carpet was cleaned 3 times in an attempt to remove odour and stains. However I find it unlikely that the stains and odour would have been removed and that a single deep clean would have been sufficient to carry out other work before the carpet was removed. For that reason I award $350.00.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The washing machine, which was listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement, was missing at the end of the tenancy. I find from the landlord’s evidence that the washing machine was 2 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $1,200.00. Evidence was provided that the cost of a new washing machine of the same brand and model is $1,552.00.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. To avoid betterment in favour of the landlord in ordering compensation I have considered : a) the depreciated value of the washing machine, which I find to be $1,085.00. I find a washing machine of this type has a reasonable life span in a tenanted property of about 7 years and that this machine was around 30% through its expected life span, and b) the cost to buy a second hand machine of the same age and type, which I consider to be around $750.00.
As the second hand value is less than the depreciated value I award that sum as reasonable compensation.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the Carpet and wooden flooring
I find the carpet in the bedrooms, stairs and hall and the wooden floor in the kitchen, dining and living rooms needed to be replaced due to damage caused by dogs living in the premises. I am satisfied that the carpet is stained, smells of urine and is damaged in several places. The wooden floor is badly scratched.
The dogs were permitted to live in the premises 1 however the damage they caused is more than fair wear and tear. I find the damage is intentional as the tenant has allowed the damage to continue knowing that that the floors are being damaged.
The landlord originally claimed $3,380.00 for the cost to replace the carpet with carpet of the same type, and $2,997.35 for refinishing the wooden floors (sanding and polyurethane coating). Since the application the landlord has successfully made a claim to his insurer. The insurer has settled the claim on the basis that the landlord received $4,777.35 for both the carpet and the wooden flooring and 11 After reviewing the tenancy agreement after the hearing I see this is stated in clause 4 of the Tenancy Agreement had to pay 4 excesses of $400.00 each (3 excesses are attributed to the carpet and one excess to the wooden flooring). That means the landlord has incurred the cost of $1,600.00 to replace the flooring.
In considering betterment and depreciation, I find the reasonable life span of carpet in tenanted premises is 10 years. The landlord believes the carpet was installed around 10 years ago, therefore the carpet’s life expectancy has expired. However I am satisfied by the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was generally in condition at the start of the tenancy and the damage caused by the tenant has caused the carpet to be to be replaced. That is the intentional damage caused during the tenancy has well accelerated the need for replacement carpet. On that basis I find the tenant is liable to pay $400.00 towards the replacement of the carpet.
I find the life expectancy of the wooden floors in a tenanted premises has a range of between 15-20 years depending on how they are looked after. Here the amount and nature of the damage is significant; the dogs have done more damage than was originally understood. The floors cannot be sanded and polyurethane as the damage to the surface is too deep, and the flooring needs to be replaced at a greater cost that than the quote to refurbish ($2,997.35). Taking depreciation and betterment into consideration I find the floor is around two-thirds through its expected life span. In the circumstances I find it reasonable to award compensation of $400.00 due to the intentional nature of the damage.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

The landlord claims $2,200.00 (four weeks’ rent), on the grounds that the premises could not be re-let soon after the end of this tenancy due to the condition the tenant left the property in and extent of damage. The landlord had arranged for the property to be rented immediately after the tenancy ended, however due to the amount of work required to bring the property to the level required to re-let it, the landlord lost that tenant.
It is expected that a landlord will need to carry out maintenance or extra cleaning after a tenancy ends. However in this instance the amount of damage and the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy meant the premises were unavailable to be re-let for some time. This is as a direct consequence of the tenant failing to meet their obligations.
Here the landlord has carried out some of the work himself and his insurance claim has taken some time to be assessed. Balancing these considerations, I find the work, particularly the flooring would always take some time to remedy and find the landlord an award of $1,650.00 being equivalent to 3 weeks rent is reasonable. Other matters
Filing Fee: As the landlord has been successful in his claim I must award reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded.
Suppression: Under section 95A, RTA the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the claim order that the party’s name or identifying details not be published unless it considers publication is in the public interest or justified by the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case. The tenant is the successful party and has applied for suppression of their names and identifying details of the tenancy. Accordingly suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253119 — net $6,894.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 June 2025	$3,742.85	Rent arrears to 14 June 2025
Cleaning	$1,200.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$575.00	Lock/key replacement
Missing washing machine	$750.00	Missing washing machine
Damage to carpet	$400.00	Damage to carpet
Damage to wooden floor	$400.00	Damage to wooden floor
Loss of rental income	$1,650.00	Loss of rental income
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,894.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,894.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jason John Withers must pay [The landlord/s] $6,744.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy from 14 June 2024 to 14 June 2025. Before the expiry of the fixed term the landlord served a valid notice on the tenant of his intention not to continue with the tenancy.
The tenancy premises is a two level unit in a 15 unit complex. It consists of two bedrooms, one bathroom, an open plan kitchen/dining/living area and a garage. The landlord purchased the unit at the start of the tenancy with the tenant in occupation. The landlord and tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy for one year.
There were 2 dogs at the premises. The dogs had puppies. The landlord served a 14 day notice requiring the dogs not to be at the premises. The puppies were removed but the dogs remained. On taking possession of the premises at the expiry of the tenancy the landlord found the property was not reasonably clean and tidy, that damage had occurred, and the washing machine was missing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as $3,742.85.
For clarity, the rent summary records the correct amount paid by the tenant during the tenancy ($25,250.00). However the payments recorded on and after 15 April 2025 are incorrect, and should correctly read $400.00 paid on 15 April and $1,200 paid on 9 May.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s photographs taken on 16 June 2025 establish that the tenant had made little, if any, attempt to clean the property.
The landlord claims $2,300 for cleaning. This cost includes taking all boxed and bagged rubbish in the unit to the garage. I find this cost is more than is reasonable for the work required based on the photographs presented and the size of the unit. In making this finding I acknowledge that significant cleaning was required and that the work included gathering and bagging rubbish from inside the premises, however find $1,200.00, consisting of 2 people working for 2 days at 8 hours/day @ $37.50/hr is reasonable to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The amount claimed for rubbish ($505.08) is reasonable and proven.
The evidence establishes that carpet was significantly soiled with dog urine and faeces and had a strongly unpleasant odour. There was bags and boxes of rubbish throughout the premises, including food waste. The kitchen had food on the floor and other surfaces; food was left in the fridge in the kitchen and the two fridges left in the garage. Curtains and blinds were dirty. The deck was dirty and was covered in soil and dog faeces. Personal belongings including furniture were left in the premises.
Overall I am satisfied that the carpet required cleaning so that other work, including cleaning work, could be carried out without a health and safety risk. The landlord carried out the carpet cleaning and has claimed $850.00 on the basis the carpet was cleaned 3 times in an attempt to remove odour and stains. However I find it unlikely that the stains and odour would have been removed and that a single deep clean would have been sufficient to carry out other work before the carpet was removed. For that reason I award $350.00.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The washing machine, which was listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement, was missing at the end of the tenancy. I find from the landlord’s evidence that the washing machine was 2 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $1,200.00. Evidence was provided that the cost of a new washing machine of the same brand and model is $1,552.00.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. To avoid betterment in favour of the landlord in ordering compensation I have considered : a) the depreciated value of the washing machine, which I find to be $1,085.00. I find a washing machine of this type has a reasonable life span in a tenanted property of about 7 years and that this machine was around 30% through its expected life span, and b) the cost to buy a second hand machine of the same age and type, which I consider to be around $750.00.
As the second hand value is less than the depreciated value I award that sum as reasonable compensation.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the Carpet and wooden flooring
I find the carpet in the bedrooms, stairs and hall and the wooden floor in the kitchen, dining and living rooms needed to be replaced due to damage caused by dogs living in the premises. I am satisfied that the carpet is stained, smells of urine and is damaged in several places. The wooden floor is badly scratched.
The dogs were permitted to live in the premises 1 however the damage they caused is more than fair wear and tear. I find the damage is intentional as the tenant has allowed the damage to continue knowing that that the floors are being damaged.
The landlord originally claimed $3,380.00 for the cost to replace the carpet with carpet of the same type, and $2,997.35 for refinishing the wooden floors (sanding and polyurethane coating). Since the application the landlord has successfully made a claim to his insurer. The insurer has settled the claim on the basis that the landlord received $4,777.35 for both the carpet and the wooden flooring and 11 After reviewing the tenancy agreement after the hearing I see this is stated in clause 4 of the Tenancy Agreement had to pay 4 excesses of $400.00 each (3 excesses are attributed to the carpet and one excess to the wooden flooring). That means the landlord has incurred the cost of $1,600.00 to replace the flooring.
In considering betterment and depreciation, I find the reasonable life span of carpet in tenanted premises is 10 years. The landlord believes the carpet was installed around 10 years ago, therefore the carpet’s life expectancy has expired. However I am satisfied by the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was generally in condition at the start of the tenancy and the damage caused by the tenant has caused the carpet to be to be replaced. That is the intentional damage caused during the tenancy has well accelerated the need for replacement carpet. On that basis I find the tenant is liable to pay $400.00 towards the replacement of the carpet.
I find the life expectancy of the wooden floors in a tenanted premises has a range of between 15-20 years depending on how they are looked after. Here the amount and nature of the damage is significant; the dogs have done more damage than was originally understood. The floors cannot be sanded and polyurethane as the damage to the surface is too deep, and the flooring needs to be replaced at a greater cost that than the quote to refurbish ($2,997.35). Taking depreciation and betterment into consideration I find the floor is around two-thirds through its expected life span. In the circumstances I find it reasonable to award compensation of $400.00 due to the intentional nature of the damage.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

The landlord claims $2,200.00 (four weeks’ rent), on the grounds that the premises could not be re-let soon after the end of this tenancy due to the condition the tenant left the property in and extent of damage. The landlord had arranged for the property to be rented immediately after the tenancy ended, however due to the amount of work required to bring the property to the level required to re-let it, the landlord lost that tenant.
It is expected that a landlord will need to carry out maintenance or extra cleaning after a tenancy ends. However in this instance the amount of damage and the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy meant the premises were unavailable to be re-let for some time. This is as a direct consequence of the tenant failing to meet their obligations.
Here the landlord has carried out some of the work himself and his insurance claim has taken some time to be assessed. Balancing these considerations, I find the work, particularly the flooring would always take some time to remedy and find the landlord an award of $1,650.00 being equivalent to 3 weeks rent is reasonable. Other matters
Filing Fee: As the landlord has been successful in his claim I must award reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded.
Suppression: Under section 95A, RTA the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the claim order that the party’s name or identifying details not be published unless it considers publication is in the public interest or justified by the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case. The tenant is the successful party and has applied for suppression of their names and identifying details of the tenancy. Accordingly suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253119 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253119 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions