What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253440 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Hamish

How much money was awarded in case 5253440?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $93.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Shelves: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $157.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253440?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12423569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253440 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Hamish

How much money was awarded in case 5253440?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $93.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Shelves: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $157.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253440?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12423569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Manly Street, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5253440 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253440 — net $2,406.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: green fill	$157.00	Rubbish removal: green fill
Replace missing shelves	$300.00	Replace missing shelves
Compensation for damaged walls	$450.00	Compensation for damaged walls
Repair damaged front door	$93.50	Repair damaged front door
Compensation for 6 damaged internal doors	$750.00	Compensation for 6 damaged internal doors
Resow damaged lawn	$48.98	Resow damaged lawn
Replace damaged vinyl floor in kitchen	$480.00	Replace damaged vinyl floor in kitchen
Compensation for damaged ensuite tile	$100.00	Compensation for damaged ensuite tile
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,406.48
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,406.48

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253440 — net $2,406.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: green fill	$157.00	Rubbish removal: green fill
Replace missing shelves	$300.00	Replace missing shelves
Compensation for damaged walls	$450.00	Compensation for damaged walls
Repair damaged front door	$93.50	Repair damaged front door
Compensation for 6 damaged internal doors	$750.00	Compensation for 6 damaged internal doors
Resow damaged lawn	$48.98	Resow damaged lawn
Replace damaged vinyl floor in kitchen	$480.00	Replace damaged vinyl floor in kitchen
Compensation for damaged ensuite tile	$100.00	Compensation for damaged ensuite tile
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,406.48
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,406.48

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Hamish Shearer As Trustees For The Shearer Family Trust $2,406.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below, with all other claims dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (5309743-012) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Hamish Shearer: $2,406.48 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $353.52

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over two days on 9 July and 17 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have filed a cross application for refund of the bond.
This was a long-term tenancy which started on 20 July 2019 and ended on 12 January 2025. Burden of proof
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.
Both parties provided extensive evidence about the claims. It is not necessary for me to repeat all the evidence in this decision, but both parties should know that I have carefully considered it, including the submissions made by each party both in writing and orally at the hearing.

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). Green waste
The tenant did not remove all green waste from the grounds as shown in photos produced in evidence. The costs for removal of $157 are proved. Swimming pool
The landlord seeks the costs of chemicals to fill and balance the swimming pool on the basis that the tenants emptied the pool and should have kept it filled. The costs sought are $493.44.
The tenants claim that the pool was leaking. However the landlord says that they found no leaks. The tenants also claimed that they were having electrical problems. The electrician sent to investigate believed that a light fixture in the pool was tripping the fuse. They say the landlords told them to stop using it and the pump was turned off. As a result the pool started to develop algae, attract insects including mosquitoes, and smell. On 16 November 2024, the tenants emailed the landlord about this and asked if they could empty the pool and also suggested that they waterblast the walls to prepare it for painting. The landlord (Hamish Shearer) replied the same day saying: “No problem it’s probably better empty while we get it sorted.”
Given that the landlord gave the tenants permission to empty the pool, they are not entitled to recover from the tenants the costs of re-filling it. The claim is dismissed. Shelving
The landlord claims that wire shelving units provided in three of the bedroom wardrobes and in the laundry were missing at the end of the tenancy. The shelving was installed in 2019 just before the tenancy started. Therefore, it was almost six years old at the end of the tenancy. It is not recorded as a chattel on the copy of the tenancy agreement provided in evidence. The landlords obtained a quote to replace the shelving for $1,234.00 and the work has been completed.
The tenants acknowledge that the laundry shelving was missing. In relation to the bedroom wardrobes, they say that there was a very simple shelf in each of the bedroom wardrobes and they do not recall that it was missing. They also maintained that the shelving was flimsy and often falling off the walls which they had to repair. However, there is no evidence that they reported a problem with the shelving to the landlords. The tenants submit that the replacement cost for the shelving is excessive given their view that it was flimsy and not high quality.
I accept that some shelving was provided in three of the bedroom wardrobes and in the laundry as acknowledged by the tenants. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that it was missing at the end of the tenancy and they replaced it.
Where an item is replaced, I must consider betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
High quality steel wire shelving would be expected to last 10-20 years, or more. However, I cannot be certain about the quality of the shelving in this case because the landlord did not have evidence of its original cost and specifications, nor photos of the shelving. In the circumstances, I award nominal compensation for the missing shelving of $300.

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.
I consider each of the landlord’s claim for damages in turn. The landlord has owned this house for 20 years and says it was constructed in the 1970s. In assessing the damage, I note that a property inspection report was completed by the parties on 19 July 2019 to record the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The report records that the property is generally in good condition with no damage except for the following: a few scrape marks on the lounge wall; worn floor in lounge by kitchen; scuff marks on kitchen/dining walls/doors; damage on wall by curtains in bedroom 1; a few marks on back wall in bedroom 2; nail hole and scuff mark on walls/doors in bedroom 4. The report records new flooring in kitchen/dining room. The landlord also said that in 2019 just before this tenancy started they painted all of the internal doors and some of the walls. Damaged walls/wallpaper in the upstairs kitchen, dining room, lounge, and hall:
The landlord says the tenants had extended family living at the property (in excess of the number permitted by the tenancy agreement) and some were sleeping in the lounges. They say that the tenants admitted to them during the tenancy that the children had damaged the wallpaper by ripping it and drawing on it. As a result the parties had discussions about the work that would be required at the end of the tenancy to repair the damage.
The landlords gave notice in April 2024 to end the tenancy because they intended to put the premises on the market for sale. Later it was agreed to extend the notice so that the tenants last day of the tenancy was 12 January 2025. Part of the reason for the extension is because after visiting in July 2024, Mr Shearer realised there was a lot of work required to ready the property for sale. The landlords (based in Australia) decided to return during the Christmas holidays and complete repairs and maintenance to ready the property for sale themselves. There were several email exchanges between the parties concerning responsibility for maintenance and repairs as follows:
6.24 at 12.43am: Tenants to Landlord: “...Thank you for call earlier and for discussing the options....to extend our rental agreement until December, exact date to be determined later....We’ll discuss specifics including any work to be completed on the house, in the coming week...”
6.24 at 6.56am; Landlord to Tenants: “....Brenda and I will return at Xmas and undertake the repairs and also update the maintenance....We will discuss and agree with you closer to that time on what materials should be attributed to any tenant damages maybe just some wallpaper and a few holes in the walls?.....Whatever we apportion as your costs we will mutually agree...”
9.24: Tenants to Landlord: “....I’ve attached our last correspondence [26 June emails above].....we were going to discuss, apportion and agree on what each of us needed to do concerning the house so that we could do these things before leaving and be complete by your inspection date....Looking forward to hearing from you what these plans would look like and then we can assess where we can fit in to help....”
9.24: Landlord to Tenants: “...Hamish has mentioned the damage to the walls, e.g. holes, wallpaper peeled off in areas. I think what may work best for both parties is if you are able to repair the holes so that they are sound, we will find new wallpaper to match for those areas and we will re-wallpaper the walls (At our cost).....”
9.24: Tenants to Landlord: “.....Thank you for providing a solution for the walls. We’ll check for holes (take pictures) and have our handyman patch these (at our cost). I can’t think of any holes off the top of my head, bar by the front door. But there are a number of wallpaper peelings....”
10.24: Landlord to Tenants: “...We need to lock in a date for the final inspection of the house so this email is a formal notification that your tenancy will end on Sunday 12 January 2025 with a final inspection undertaken by us on Monday 13 January 2025......Any damages to the property will need to be rectified prior to that date, this will include any holes in the walls or broken/damaged walls....”
In the email exchanges the landlord asked the tenants to repair the holes and any areas that needed to be done and the landlords would then re-wallpaper at their cost. The tenants agreed. There was no specific discussion as to how the tenants would repair the damage.
After this email, there were no further exchanges. The tenants did not send the landlord any photos of any holes or areas that they intended to repair before arranging for their handyman to complete extensive plastering over damaged walls, which involved plastering directly over the wallpaper. At the hearing, they explained that they did this because they expected and understood that the landlord intended to paint over the wallpaper as they had done in other areas of the house. They also understood that the landlord would supply the paint for the tenants to do this work but this did not eventuate. They believe they completed repairs as requested by the landlord.
The landlord’s position is that they did not agree to the scope of the plastering work over large areas of wallpaper because they did not intend to paint the walls. Their intention was always to wallpaper as stated in their email. They complain that the plastering arranged by the tenants was also rough and not to a reasonable workman-like standard. There were also many other wall areas that were damaged with scratches, drawings, and marks. They produced photos of the damaged areas in evidence. The landlord seeks the costs of removing the plaster, the damaged wallpaper, repairing the wall damage and re-wallpapering the areas. The costs sought are $1,269.30
The tenants claim that the landlord did not raise extensive concerns at the final inspection conducted with both parties present on 14 January 2025. They describe the discussion as “light” with minimal expected deductions. They left the inspection believing a reasonable understanding had been reached, with the tenants offering $400 towards some acknowledged damages for the front door and missing laundry shelving. They believe that the landlord is attempting to pass on the costs they incurred to renovate the property for sale rather than the costs to address tenant damage.
The landlords deny the tenants characterisation of the final inspection noting that they discussed their concerns but were not in a position to quantify the repair costs at that stage. While they intended to complete extra maintenance to ready the property for sale and they refurbished several areas, they only seek the extra costs incurred because of the tenant damage.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am satisfied that the tenants caused extensive damage to the walls during the tenancy carelessly. The damage exceeded the minor scuffs mentioned in the pre-tenancy property inspection report. I also find that the plastering completed by the tenants did not address all the damage and was not done to a reasonable standard. I accept that the landlords could not simply paper over areas and they had to remove the plaster, strip back the wallpaper in the damaged areas, fix holes and gouges with plaster and then re-wallpaper the areas.
In assessing the costs claimed, I must consider depreciation. The wallpaper was 20 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that wallpaper will last between 5-12 years. So the costs here should be fully depreciated. However, I accept that, but for the damage, the wallpaper was expected to last a few more years and the landlord was not expecting to have to remove all the wallpaper to repair the damage. The amount claimed by the landlord seems very light given the work required. The landlords have clearly kept the costs to a minimum by doing the work themselves. Taking those factors into account, I award $450 being approximately 30% of the costs claimed which I consider is justified. Front door
The tenants accept the costs of removing stickers attached to the door during the tenancy and then sanding and revarnishing the door. The claim of $93.50 is awarded. Six internal doors
I accept on the evidence that six doors at the tenancy were carelessly damaged with scrapes, gouges and holes during the tenancy. In one case, it appears that the tenants attempted to plaster over a hole in the door but it was not done to a reasonable standard. The tenants claim that many of the doors were already marked at the start of the tenancy but I find that the damage exceeded the minor scuffs and marks recorded in the pre-tenancy property inspection report.
The landlords seek the costs of replacing the six doors for $2,752.42 (approximately $458 per door) , based on an estimate provided by their builder, and the work has been done. The doors are hollow core and are likely the original doors installed in the 70s. Therefore, they are probably heading towards 50 years old. The landlord says the doors were repainted in 2019 and were in good condition.
The tenant says that the landlord’s decision to replace the doors conflicts with the landlord’s initial advice at the bond inspection that the doors could be repaired, by sanding, plastering, and painting as necessary. They also note that the landlords later claimed only three doors needed replacing and now they claim six doors need replacement.
The landlords said that they did not indicate the likely costs and remedies at the bond inspection because that needed to be assessed. However, they raised their concerns with the tenants. It later became apparent that the door damage was worse than first observed at the bond inspection. There were cracks and chips at the tops of the doors caused by something hung over them and in places they were so scratched the landlord could not sand them back enough to make them smooth. I accept that replacement of the doors was required.
I must consider depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of internal hollow core doors to be 20-30 years old. Therefore, the doors should be fully depreciated. However, I accept that the doors were in good condition and, but for the damage, would be expected to last a few more years. That being the case, I consider that an award of $750 ($125 per door) being just over 25% of the replacement cost is reasonable to compensate the landlord for the unintended early replacement of the doors. Lawn damage
The lawn damage from a fire pit is accepted by the tenants. The cost for the lawn seed of $48.98 is awarded. The costs of a hose and sprinkler which the landlord has retained and can use for other purposes is not awarded. Vinyl floor in kitchen
I accept on the evidence that the floor was carelessly damaged during the tenancy. The quoted cost to replace the floor (which has been completed) was $1,200. However, I must consider depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of vinyl flooring in a rental property is 10 years. The landlord could not be certain how old the flooring was and estimated that it was installed in 2015. However, the property inspection report dated 19 July 2019 records that the flooring in the kitchen/dining area was new at that stage. Therefore, I accept it was likely 6 years old when the tenancy ended. Therefore, I depreciate the floor replacement costs by 60% and award $480. Swimming pool tiles
At the second hearing, the landlord said that she did not have a photo of the cracked tiles around the swimming pool. However, there is a photo filed with the application. The landlord seeks a contribution of $100 towards the costs of replacing the cracked tiles around the rim of the pool. However, I am not satisfied on the evidence that the damage was caused other than by fair wear and tear. There is no mention of the condition of the pool on the property inspection report nor any photos showing its condition at the start of the tenancy. The pool and tiles are more than 20 years old. I dismiss the claim. Ensuite tile floor
I accept on the evidence that the tile was cracked during the tenancy and amounts to careless damage. The landlord seeks a contribution of $100 towards the estimated tile replacement costs. The tiles were 20 years old but in good condition. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that ceramic tiles will last 50 years. I consider the landlord’s claim for a contribution towards the cost is reasonable and awarded.
The landlords withdrew their claims for carpet damage and damage to lounge cupboard.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253440 — Property damage at 16 Manly Street, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253440 — Property damage at 16 Manly Street, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.