What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268621 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5268621?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,271.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $353.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268621?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268621?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12903057-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268621 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5268621?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,271.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $353.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268621?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268621?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12903057-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Bell Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268621 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

8 Bell Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268621 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268621 — net $1,951.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage	$353.00	Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage
Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door	$3,271.75	Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,951.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,951.75

Claims and awards for application 5268621 — net $1,951.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $360.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage

Amount: $353.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage

Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door

Amount: $3,271.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited $1,951.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (5332050-003) to Lodge City Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

On 22 May 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation for cleaning. DescriptionLandlordTenant Cleaning$360.00 Carpet Cleaning$280.00 Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage$353.00 Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door$3,271.75 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,291.75 Bond$2,340.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,951.75 c. Compensation for carpet cleaning. d. Compensation for rubbish removal costs. e. Compensation for lawn and garden maintenance. f. Compensation for window glazing.
The hearing proceeded in person. Ms Pauline Cawte, Branch Manager, appeared for the landlord.
Mrs [The tenant/s] tenant/s] appeared for both tenants. The tenant was supported in the hearing by her daughter Ms Rasin Al Ammarin and her Sharma caseworker Ms Adbelazin.
An Arabic interpreter assisted the Tribunal.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for compensation for lawn and garden maintenance. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 24 April 2018.
The property was placed on the market and the tenants were given notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 15 April 2025.

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.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks $560.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs. The property is an older style home, with some evidence of wear and tear, but was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord completed two end of tenancy exit inspections. The first was completed on 16 April 2025 and the second was completed on 22 April 2025. Between 16 April and 22 April 2025, the landlord allowed the tenant to return to the property to complete additional cleaning and repairs to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The second end of tenancy exit report with photographs shows: a. The carpets and floors needed to be vacuumed and mopped. b. There was visible fly dirt throughout the property – including on the walls, ceilings, and light fittings. c. The oven interior needed additional cleaning. d. The shower waste, and walls needed additional cleaning. e. Mould needed to be removed from silicon between the wall and the vanity and the vanity tap needed to be cleaned and polished. The bath and cabinets needed wiping out. f. The laundry tub and tap needed cleaning. The toilet in the laundry needed additional cleaning. g. Scribble marks needed to be removed from the sunroom wall. h. Some of the windows needed to be cleaned.
The tenant said that while the property wasn’t professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy it was returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant said that they paid particular attention to the kitchen and bathroom and disputed the cleaning costs claimed by the landlord. The tenant said that given the length of the tenancy some general wear and tear should be expected.
The tenant provided their own photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. There were a limited number of photographs showing a broad overview of the rooms.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in 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 consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 1
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that there were some areas of the property that required additional cleaning to bring it up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Given the additional cleaning identified by the Tribunal as being required, the amount of $360.00 is ordered.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $280.00 after paying a contractor to professionally clean and deodorise the carpet at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that there were additional stains in the carpet at the end of the tenancy which required treating.
The tenant disputed the claim stating she cleaned the carpet twice a year using a hired carpet cleaning machine. The tenant denied the carpet required deodorising, stating the house was well ventilated.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the carpet at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that there were additional carpet stains at the end of the tenancy that required professional carpet cleaning. Given the length of the tenancy, and the age and 1 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354 condition of the carpet, the Tribunal considers that the amount claimed is reasonable and is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $353.00 after paying a contractor to remove and dump old furniture and rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the tenant failed to remove an old table, wooden bin, car parts, and a dolls house. They said their contractor also had to remove and dump rubbish left in the Council rubbish, recycling, and food scraps bins. The end of tenancy inspection report notes, the recycling bin contained non-recyclable rubbish, and the bins had not been cleaned out. The bins were pressure washed after the rubbish was dumped.
The tenant states that some of the rubbish claimed for was present at the commencement of the tenancy but accepted leaving behind a table, wooden bin, and dolls house. The tenant disputed ownership of the car parts saying they were stored in the garage at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant also challenged the charge for dumping rubbish from the Council provided bins.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy based on comparison between the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the Council provided rubbish, recycling and food scraps bins needed to be dumped and cleaned due to incorrect use. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 49Bof the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Window glazing and front door
The landlord seeks compensation for: a. window glazing totalling $1,920.50; and, b. A new custom made glazed exterior front door totalling $1,351.25. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy there were no broken windows. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered broken windows and windowpanes that had been replaced with Perspex. The landlord states that the following rooms required reglazing: a. Supply and install new 4mm glass in two living room windows, two sunroom windows and one downstairs hall window. b. Supply and install new 4mm glass using paintable putty in bedroom one and bedroom two. c. Supply and install new 4mm clear toughened safety glass to two steel windows in the garage.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the damaged glazing in the living room, hallway, bedrooms, and garage. The tenant disputes responsibility for the glazing cost in the sunroom. The tenant claims the safety stays holding the windows open failed during windy weather causing the glass to smash. The tenant said that issue was reported to the property manager four or five days before they left the property, but no action was taken.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenant is responsible for broken windows and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is responsible for the damage to the sunroom windows. The tenant was careless opening the windows on a windy day knowing there was an issue with the safety stays. The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord states the front door had to be replaced after the wood around the lock was discovered to be split and irreparable. A contractor was paid to supply and install a new custom-made pre-primed glazed exterior door, to match the existing door (as closely as possible), and fit new hinges but reuse the existing hardware and locks.
The tenant claims the issue with the door was reported to the property manager approximately one year, and then again six months before leaving the tenancy but no remedial work was completed. The tenant said the door is old with metal parts, and they thought the locking mechanism was broken. The tenant was unable to provide an explanation as to how the door was damaged.
The landlord denied receiving a complaint about damage to the front door from the tenants. The landlord said that if they had been notified of the issue, they would have complied with their obligation to fix the door, as required by the Act. The landlord said they would have also fixed the door as it presented as a health risk to the family and because it presented as a security risk to the home. The landlord also noted there was no issue with the hardware or locking mechanism, which were reused on the new door.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the door at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the door was broken during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other matters
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268621 — net $1,951.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage	$353.00	Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage
Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door	$3,271.75	Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,951.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,951.75

Claims and awards for application 5268621 — net $1,951.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $360.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage

Amount: $353.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage

Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door

Amount: $3,271.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited $1,951.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (5332050-003) to Lodge City Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

On 22 May 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation for cleaning. DescriptionLandlordTenant Cleaning$360.00 Carpet Cleaning$280.00 Rubbish removal: including Council bins and garage$353.00 Repairs: Window glazing and replacement from door$3,271.75 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,291.75 Bond$2,340.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,951.75 c. Compensation for carpet cleaning. d. Compensation for rubbish removal costs. e. Compensation for lawn and garden maintenance. f. Compensation for window glazing.
The hearing proceeded in person. Ms Pauline Cawte, Branch Manager, appeared for the landlord.
Mrs [The tenant/s] tenant/s] appeared for both tenants. The tenant was supported in the hearing by her daughter Ms Rasin Al Ammarin and her Sharma caseworker Ms Adbelazin.
An Arabic interpreter assisted the Tribunal.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for compensation for lawn and garden maintenance. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 24 April 2018.
The property was placed on the market and the tenants were given notice terminating the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 15 April 2025.

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.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks $560.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs. The property is an older style home, with some evidence of wear and tear, but was provided in a clean and tidy condition.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord completed two end of tenancy exit inspections. The first was completed on 16 April 2025 and the second was completed on 22 April 2025. Between 16 April and 22 April 2025, the landlord allowed the tenant to return to the property to complete additional cleaning and repairs to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The second end of tenancy exit report with photographs shows: a. The carpets and floors needed to be vacuumed and mopped. b. There was visible fly dirt throughout the property – including on the walls, ceilings, and light fittings. c. The oven interior needed additional cleaning. d. The shower waste, and walls needed additional cleaning. e. Mould needed to be removed from silicon between the wall and the vanity and the vanity tap needed to be cleaned and polished. The bath and cabinets needed wiping out. f. The laundry tub and tap needed cleaning. The toilet in the laundry needed additional cleaning. g. Scribble marks needed to be removed from the sunroom wall. h. Some of the windows needed to be cleaned.
The tenant said that while the property wasn’t professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy it was returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant said that they paid particular attention to the kitchen and bathroom and disputed the cleaning costs claimed by the landlord. The tenant said that given the length of the tenancy some general wear and tear should be expected.
The tenant provided their own photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. There were a limited number of photographs showing a broad overview of the rooms.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in 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 consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 1
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that there were some areas of the property that required additional cleaning to bring it up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Given the additional cleaning identified by the Tribunal as being required, the amount of $360.00 is ordered.

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $280.00 after paying a contractor to professionally clean and deodorise the carpet at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that there were additional stains in the carpet at the end of the tenancy which required treating.
The tenant disputed the claim stating she cleaned the carpet twice a year using a hired carpet cleaning machine. The tenant denied the carpet required deodorising, stating the house was well ventilated.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the carpet at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that there were additional carpet stains at the end of the tenancy that required professional carpet cleaning. Given the length of the tenancy, and the age and 1 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354 condition of the carpet, the Tribunal considers that the amount claimed is reasonable and is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $353.00 after paying a contractor to remove and dump old furniture and rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the tenant failed to remove an old table, wooden bin, car parts, and a dolls house. They said their contractor also had to remove and dump rubbish left in the Council rubbish, recycling, and food scraps bins. The end of tenancy inspection report notes, the recycling bin contained non-recyclable rubbish, and the bins had not been cleaned out. The bins were pressure washed after the rubbish was dumped.
The tenant states that some of the rubbish claimed for was present at the commencement of the tenancy but accepted leaving behind a table, wooden bin, and dolls house. The tenant disputed ownership of the car parts saying they were stored in the garage at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant also challenged the charge for dumping rubbish from the Council provided bins.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy based on comparison between the pre-tenancy and end of tenancy inspection photographs. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the Council provided rubbish, recycling and food scraps bins needed to be dumped and cleaned due to incorrect use. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 49Bof the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Window glazing and front door
The landlord seeks compensation for: a. window glazing totalling $1,920.50; and, b. A new custom made glazed exterior front door totalling $1,351.25. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy there were no broken windows. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered broken windows and windowpanes that had been replaced with Perspex. The landlord states that the following rooms required reglazing: a. Supply and install new 4mm glass in two living room windows, two sunroom windows and one downstairs hall window. b. Supply and install new 4mm glass using paintable putty in bedroom one and bedroom two. c. Supply and install new 4mm clear toughened safety glass to two steel windows in the garage.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the damaged glazing in the living room, hallway, bedrooms, and garage. The tenant disputes responsibility for the glazing cost in the sunroom. The tenant claims the safety stays holding the windows open failed during windy weather causing the glass to smash. The tenant said that issue was reported to the property manager four or five days before they left the property, but no action was taken.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenant is responsible for broken windows and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant is responsible for the damage to the sunroom windows. The tenant was careless opening the windows on a windy day knowing there was an issue with the safety stays. The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord states the front door had to be replaced after the wood around the lock was discovered to be split and irreparable. A contractor was paid to supply and install a new custom-made pre-primed glazed exterior door, to match the existing door (as closely as possible), and fit new hinges but reuse the existing hardware and locks.
The tenant claims the issue with the door was reported to the property manager approximately one year, and then again six months before leaving the tenancy but no remedial work was completed. The tenant said the door is old with metal parts, and they thought the locking mechanism was broken. The tenant was unable to provide an explanation as to how the door was damaged.
The landlord denied receiving a complaint about damage to the front door from the tenants. The landlord said that if they had been notified of the issue, they would have complied with their obligation to fix the door, as required by the Act. The landlord said they would have also fixed the door as it presented as a health risk to the family and because it presented as a security risk to the home. The landlord also noted there was no issue with the hardware or locking mechanism, which were reused on the new door.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the door at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the door was broken during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other matters
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268621 — Property damage at 8 Bell Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268621 — Property damage at 8 Bell Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish 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

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish 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.