What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5267239?

The tribunal order states: Destiny Bates and Matthew Te Whata must pay La Casa Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5267239?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,196.67 awarded to landlord; Deck: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors (X3: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls And Laundry Door: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen light f…: $377.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $989.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $16.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267239?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12463351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5267239?

The tribunal order states: Destiny Bates and Matthew Te Whata must pay La Casa Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5267239?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,196.67 awarded to landlord; Deck: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors (X3: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls And Laundry Door: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen light f…: $377.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $989.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $16.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267239?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12463351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12, 23 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267239 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267239 — net $7,193.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 April 2025	$3,196.67	Rent arrears to 22 April 2025
Water rates	$16.39	Water rates
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$989.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Repairs: Internal doors (x3	$1,012.00	Repairs: Internal doors (x3
Repairs: Painting walls and laundry door	$920.00	Repairs: Painting walls and laundry door
Insurance excess for carpet replacement	$2,200.00	Insurance excess for carpet replacement
Repairs: Deck	$345.00	Repairs: Deck
Replace furnishings: Kitchen light fittings	$377.20	Replace furnishings: Kitchen light fittings
Lost rent	$630.00	Lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	claim for compensation for lost rent is granted for $630.00, which equates to one weeks’ rent. I consider this fairly and reasonably reflects the actual delay…
Net award	$7,193.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,193.26

Order

Destiny Bates and Matthew Te Whata must pay La Casa Property Management Limited As Agent For Avikash Kumar & Ashika Devi $7,193.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6534490-012) to La Casa Property Management Limited As Agent For Avikash Kumar & Ashika Devi immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 25 September 2025. The tenant did not.
The tenancy began on 23 April 2024 and was for a fixed term ending on 22 April 2025. On 3 April 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a text message advising they were leaving the premises. The landlord took possession of the premises on 4 April 2025 and seeks rent arrears up to the end of the fixed term. The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant damaged the premises during the tenancy. In particular, the landlord claims the tenant kept dogs at the premises, which urinated on the carpet. The landlord seeks compensation for the repairs and four weeks lost rent. The issues I must determine are: a. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? b. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates? c. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy? e. Should the tenant compensate the landlord four weeks lost rent? Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy is for a fixed term, beginning on 23 April 2024 and ending on 22 April 2025.
The tenant sent the landlord a text message on 3 April 2025, advising that they were leaving the premises. The landlord took possession of the premises on 4 April 2025.
The tenant did not assign the tenancy or deliver up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent. 1 The premises were not re-tenanted until very recently. In these circumstances, the tenant must pay rent up to the end of the fixed term.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $3,196.67 up to 22 April 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $3,196.67.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

The landlord claims the tenant owes $16.39 in outstanding water rates invoices. They submitted a copy of the original invoice from Watercare dated 22 April 2025.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $16.39.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave all chattels provided by the landlord. The tenant must also leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. 2
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 43B and 50(1)(d). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii) and (v). 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave two light fittings in the kitchen at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish. I deal with each issue individually below. Light fittings
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show two light fittings covering the lightbulbs in the kitchen. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show these two light fittings are missing.
Light fittings are a chattel provided by the landlord. I find the tenant did not return two light fittings in the kitchen at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $377.20 to replace the light fittings.
The landlord gave evidence the premises were newly built at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the premises to be new, modern and in good condition. This tenancy was only 1 year long.
Considering the age and condition of the premises, I do not make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $377.20. Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The outdoor bins are full of rubbish. Deconstructed furniture items have been left behind, as well as broken chairs. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. The bathroom has not been cleaned and the shower glass is thick with soap scum. I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The photographs from the beginning of the tenancy show no stains on the carpet. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show stains on the carpet in the lounge. The landlord gave evidence that the premises smelt terribly of dog urine at the end of the tenancy. It was reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned in these circumstances.
The landlord submitted invoices for general cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal totalling $989.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $989.00.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9
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. 10
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. 11
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). 12
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). 13
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Internal doors (x3) b. Holes in walls c. Dog urine on the carpet d. Scratch marks on the deck
I deal with each issue individually below. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). Internal doors
The entry inspection notes that all internal doors are in good condition. In contrast, the exit inspection notes that three doors are damaged. The photographs show two internal doors have been damaged on the vertical component of the door panel where the locking mechanism is. A third door has a large dent in the main face of the door. On the balance of probabilities, I find this damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,012.00 to replace the three doors.
I decline to make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation, considering the age and state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, and the fact that this tenancy was only one year long.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the three doors is granted for $1,012.00. Holes in wall
The entry inspection report notes that all of the walls were in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The entry photographs do not show any damage to the walls. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show dents or holes in the walls in the hallway, bedroom 2 and main bedroom. The laundry door also has a large dent in it. On the balance of probabilities, I find this damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $920.00 to repair and paint the walls and laundry door.
I decline to make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation, considering the age and state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, and the fact that this tenancy was only one year long.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $920.00. Carpet
The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to keep pets however, the landlord claims the tenant kept dogs. The landlord claims the neighbours advised them that the tenant had dogs at the premises, but the tenant would always remove them before a scheduled inspection.
The landlord submitted photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. No stains on the carpet are present. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show stains on the carpet in the lounge. The landlord gave evidence that the premises smelt badly of dog urine at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted a letter from Chris Wells, a carpet lawyer, who inspected the premises at the end of the tenancy. Mr Wells states that the carpet has been damaged by “residual faecal matter and urine from pets.”
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the glass on the ranch slider door is covered in smudge marks. The smudge marks are present approximately one metre from the ground. The landlord claims the tenant did not have children. In these circumstances, I find the smudge marks to be consistent with dogs rubbing their paws, nose and mouth against the glass.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy also show the deck is covered in scratches that appear to be claw marks. These were not present at the beginning of the tenancy.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant kept at least one dog at the premises during the tenancy. I am convinced that the carpet was extensively damaged by dog urine. There are photographs of stains to the carpet in the lounge and I accept the landlord’s evidence that the premises smelt badly of dog urine. The letter from Chris Wells also confirms that the carpets were damaged by pet urine.
The landlord tried to clean the carpets professionally to get rid of the smell, but this did not work, and replacement was required. The landlord filed a claim with their insurer, which was accepted. The landlord submitted evidence from their insurer confirming the excess fee to replace the carpet was $2,200.00. The actual cost to replace the carpet was $4,700.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,200.00 to cover the excess fee. Deck
The landlord submitted photographs of the deck at the beginning of the tenancy. It is freshly stained with no scratches or marks. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show multiple scratches and marks to the deck. A comparison of these photographs convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the deck was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $345.00 to sand and stain the deck.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $345.00.

Should the tenant compensate the landlord four weeks lost rent?

The law

The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made. Analysis
I accept the landlord’s submission that advertising the premises for rent and securing a new tenancy was delayed because of the need to replace the carpet. Replacing carpet is a big job that takes some time to complete. Further, the landlord had to file a claim with their insurer, which took some time to process.
The carpet was replaced on 15 May 2025, which is approximately 4 weeks after the landlord obtained possession on 4 April 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were not re-tenanted until recently and claims the reason for the extended delay is due to economic factors adversely affecting the rental market.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that there was a delay in advertising the premises due to the need to replace the carpet. This in turn contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises, but it was not the sole or even main cause. Once the carpet was replaced, it still took months for the premises to be re-tenanted. The main reason for the delay appears to have been the current economic climate in relation to rental properties. Further, in most cases, there tends to be a delay of 3 – 4 weeks between tenancies, as new tenants usually need to give notice to end their current tenancies before beginning a new one.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for lost rent is granted for $630.00, which equates to one weeks’ rent. I consider this fairly and reasonably reflects the actual delay in re-tenanting the premises caused by the carpet. Filing fee
Because La Casa Property Management Limited As Agent For Avikash Kumar & Ashika Devi has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267239 — net $7,193.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 April 2025	$3,196.67	Rent arrears to 22 April 2025
Water rates	$16.39	Water rates
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$989.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Repairs: Internal doors (x3	$1,012.00	Repairs: Internal doors (x3
Repairs: Painting walls and laundry door	$920.00	Repairs: Painting walls and laundry door
Insurance excess for carpet replacement	$2,200.00	Insurance excess for carpet replacement
Repairs: Deck	$345.00	Repairs: Deck
Replace furnishings: Kitchen light fittings	$377.20	Replace furnishings: Kitchen light fittings
Lost rent	$630.00	Lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	claim for compensation for lost rent is granted for $630.00, which equates to one weeks’ rent. I consider this fairly and reasonably reflects the actual delay…
Net award	$7,193.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,193.26

Order

Destiny Bates and Matthew Te Whata must pay La Casa Property Management Limited As Agent For Avikash Kumar & Ashika Devi $7,193.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6534490-012) to La Casa Property Management Limited As Agent For Avikash Kumar & Ashika Devi immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 25 September 2025. The tenant did not.
The tenancy began on 23 April 2024 and was for a fixed term ending on 22 April 2025. On 3 April 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a text message advising they were leaving the premises. The landlord took possession of the premises on 4 April 2025 and seeks rent arrears up to the end of the fixed term. The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant damaged the premises during the tenancy. In particular, the landlord claims the tenant kept dogs at the premises, which urinated on the carpet. The landlord seeks compensation for the repairs and four weeks lost rent. The issues I must determine are: a. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? b. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates? c. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy? e. Should the tenant compensate the landlord four weeks lost rent? Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy is for a fixed term, beginning on 23 April 2024 and ending on 22 April 2025.
The tenant sent the landlord a text message on 3 April 2025, advising that they were leaving the premises. The landlord took possession of the premises on 4 April 2025.
The tenant did not assign the tenancy or deliver up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent. 1 The premises were not re-tenanted until very recently. In these circumstances, the tenant must pay rent up to the end of the fixed term.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $3,196.67 up to 22 April 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $3,196.67.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

The landlord claims the tenant owes $16.39 in outstanding water rates invoices. They submitted a copy of the original invoice from Watercare dated 22 April 2025.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $16.39.

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave all chattels provided by the landlord. The tenant must also leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. 2
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 43B and 50(1)(d). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii) and (v). 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave two light fittings in the kitchen at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish. I deal with each issue individually below. Light fittings
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show two light fittings covering the lightbulbs in the kitchen. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show these two light fittings are missing.
Light fittings are a chattel provided by the landlord. I find the tenant did not return two light fittings in the kitchen at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $377.20 to replace the light fittings.
The landlord gave evidence the premises were newly built at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the premises to be new, modern and in good condition. This tenancy was only 1 year long.
Considering the age and condition of the premises, I do not make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $377.20. Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The outdoor bins are full of rubbish. Deconstructed furniture items have been left behind, as well as broken chairs. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. The bathroom has not been cleaned and the shower glass is thick with soap scum. I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The photographs from the beginning of the tenancy show no stains on the carpet. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show stains on the carpet in the lounge. The landlord gave evidence that the premises smelt terribly of dog urine at the end of the tenancy. It was reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned in these circumstances.
The landlord submitted invoices for general cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal totalling $989.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $989.00.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9
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. 10
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. 11
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). 12
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). 13
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Internal doors (x3) b. Holes in walls c. Dog urine on the carpet d. Scratch marks on the deck
I deal with each issue individually below. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). Internal doors
The entry inspection notes that all internal doors are in good condition. In contrast, the exit inspection notes that three doors are damaged. The photographs show two internal doors have been damaged on the vertical component of the door panel where the locking mechanism is. A third door has a large dent in the main face of the door. On the balance of probabilities, I find this damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,012.00 to replace the three doors.
I decline to make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation, considering the age and state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, and the fact that this tenancy was only one year long.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the three doors is granted for $1,012.00. Holes in wall
The entry inspection report notes that all of the walls were in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The entry photographs do not show any damage to the walls. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show dents or holes in the walls in the hallway, bedroom 2 and main bedroom. The laundry door also has a large dent in it. On the balance of probabilities, I find this damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $920.00 to repair and paint the walls and laundry door.
I decline to make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation, considering the age and state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, and the fact that this tenancy was only one year long.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $920.00. Carpet
The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to keep pets however, the landlord claims the tenant kept dogs. The landlord claims the neighbours advised them that the tenant had dogs at the premises, but the tenant would always remove them before a scheduled inspection.
The landlord submitted photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. No stains on the carpet are present. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show stains on the carpet in the lounge. The landlord gave evidence that the premises smelt badly of dog urine at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted a letter from Chris Wells, a carpet lawyer, who inspected the premises at the end of the tenancy. Mr Wells states that the carpet has been damaged by “residual faecal matter and urine from pets.”
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the glass on the ranch slider door is covered in smudge marks. The smudge marks are present approximately one metre from the ground. The landlord claims the tenant did not have children. In these circumstances, I find the smudge marks to be consistent with dogs rubbing their paws, nose and mouth against the glass.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy also show the deck is covered in scratches that appear to be claw marks. These were not present at the beginning of the tenancy.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant kept at least one dog at the premises during the tenancy. I am convinced that the carpet was extensively damaged by dog urine. There are photographs of stains to the carpet in the lounge and I accept the landlord’s evidence that the premises smelt badly of dog urine. The letter from Chris Wells also confirms that the carpets were damaged by pet urine.
The landlord tried to clean the carpets professionally to get rid of the smell, but this did not work, and replacement was required. The landlord filed a claim with their insurer, which was accepted. The landlord submitted evidence from their insurer confirming the excess fee to replace the carpet was $2,200.00. The actual cost to replace the carpet was $4,700.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,200.00 to cover the excess fee. Deck
The landlord submitted photographs of the deck at the beginning of the tenancy. It is freshly stained with no scratches or marks. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show multiple scratches and marks to the deck. A comparison of these photographs convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the deck was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $345.00 to sand and stain the deck.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $345.00.

Should the tenant compensate the landlord four weeks lost rent?

The law

The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made. Analysis
I accept the landlord’s submission that advertising the premises for rent and securing a new tenancy was delayed because of the need to replace the carpet. Replacing carpet is a big job that takes some time to complete. Further, the landlord had to file a claim with their insurer, which took some time to process.
The carpet was replaced on 15 May 2025, which is approximately 4 weeks after the landlord obtained possession on 4 April 2025.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were not re-tenanted until recently and claims the reason for the extended delay is due to economic factors adversely affecting the rental market.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that there was a delay in advertising the premises due to the need to replace the carpet. This in turn contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises, but it was not the sole or even main cause. Once the carpet was replaced, it still took months for the premises to be re-tenanted. The main reason for the delay appears to have been the current economic climate in relation to rental properties. Further, in most cases, there tends to be a delay of 3 – 4 weeks between tenancies, as new tenants usually need to give notice to end their current tenancies before beginning a new one.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for lost rent is granted for $630.00, which equates to one weeks’ rent. I consider this fairly and reasonably reflects the actual delay in re-tenanting the premises caused by the carpet. Filing fee
Because La Casa Property Management Limited As Agent For Avikash Kumar & Ashika Devi has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267239 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 12, 23 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267239 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 12, 23 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Should the tenant compensate the landlord four weeks lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Should the tenant compensate the landlord four weeks lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions