What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270081 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Home Let Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5270081?

Cleaning: $2,487.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $795.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $640.59 awarded to landlord; Walls: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,663.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $443.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270081?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12283726-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270081 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Home Let Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5270081?

Cleaning: $2,487.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $795.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $640.59 awarded to landlord; Walls: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,663.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $443.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270081?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12283726-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Vesty Avenue, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270081 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

8 Vesty Avenue, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270081 — 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 5270081 — net $8,126.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$443.07	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Rubbish removal	$1,663.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$2,487.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: and window repair	$795.00	Lock/key replacement: and window repair
Carpet replacement	$640.59	Carpet replacement
Repairs: Walls	$2,800.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,126.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,126.19

Claims and awards for application 5270081 — net $8,126.19 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal: skip bin

Amount: $443.07
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: skip bin

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,663.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $2,487.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement: and window repair

Amount: $795.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: and window repair

Carpet replacement

Amount: $640.59
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Dismissed claims

The Missing Chattels — DAMAGE – RELEVANT LAW

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Quan Sun And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $8,126.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by phone call.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with the application and notice of the hearing by email. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application form referred to a claim for exemplary damages. This was not pursued at the hearing as the landlord clarified that this claim was to indicate that the tenant had committed an unlawful act of theft.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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.” 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 (including the land) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 3 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs showing a significant amount of rubbish was left in and outside the premises.
The landlord claimed $443.07 for a skip bin. An invoice was provided in support of the claim and I make an order for the full amount claimed.
The landlord said the skip bin did not take all the rubbish left at the premises.
The landlord arranged for a cleaner to undertake further rubbish removal and cleaning. The cleaner invoiced $1,663 for further rubbish removal which included loading the rubbish onto a trailer and taking it to the refuse centre. I was told the amount invoiced included the refuse centres fees and labour. I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven the claim for rubbish removal and award the amount in full.
It appears that a significant amount of the property had been intentionally made dirty. The landlord claimed $2,487 for cleaning. I noted that this was a very high cleaning invoice. The landlord explained that the cleaning undertaken was only to get the premises to a reasonable level for workers to undertake repairs and refurbishment at the property and additional cleaning was undertaken following the work being undertaken on the property. In addition, the landlord said the amount claimed included mowing the lawn, the garden work and removing the dirty and damaged carpet throughout the property. I am satisfied on the evidence that the premises needed significant cleaning to make it safe and sanitary for people to work in the premises and the lawns and garden work was required.
I award the full amount claimed.

LOCKS AND KEYS

The tenant did not return the keys. The amount claimed for lock and key replacement was $795. The amount claimed was supported with an invoice and photographs of the damaged front door and a broken window. The invoice included the reglazing of a window which was damaged in the sunroom which had been completely removed. I am satisfied on the evidence that lock and key replacement was required. I comment further on the claim for the damaged window below under damage claims.

CHATTELS

The landlord claims the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy from a locked area of the property that was not included in the tenancy – collectibles, toys, two ladders’, tools, a lawnmower, and other various items.
The landlord claimed $900 and said the tenant stole these items at the end of the tenancy. A New Zealand Police report was provided by the landlord outlining what was removed. I do not consider this is a claim in respect of the tenant’s tenancy as the items were not taken from a part of the tenancy premises.
No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim. Therefore, if I am wrong in my finding that this is not a dispute related to the tenancy, then I consider insufficient evidence has been provided to prove the details and value of the items alleged to have been stolen.
Accordingly, the claim for the missing chattels is dismissed. DAMAGE – RELEVANT LAW
It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7
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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 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. 10
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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

WINDOW REPAIR

The landlord claimed a window was broken in the sunroom during the tenancy. I have addressed this claim above in relation to the locksmith invoice. Pre- tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim. I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused during the tenancy. The damage appears likely to have been intentional. Accordingly, I award the full amount of the locksmith and glazier invoice.

CARPET DAMAGE

The landlord claimed $2,135.32 for replacing carpet in two bedrooms and the hallway.
The landlord says carpet was damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord says the carpet was damaged throughout the property however they have only claimed part of the carpet replacement. I consider I can only take into account the actual claim and not consider the cost of additional carpet replacement when it has not been claimed as part of the application.
Photographs were provided of the two bedrooms showing they were stained.
There were no compelling photographs provided of the hall carpet to show the level of damage, however I accept that the two bedrooms would have required 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. the greater level of carpet replacement and given the overall state of the carpet throughout the home I accept it likely needed replacement as well.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said insurance did not cover the cost to replace the carpet. It appears more likely that not that the damage to the carpet was intentional.
The landlord said the carpet was approximately 7 years old by the hearing date. The IR265 general depreciation rates states the useful lifespan of carpet is 8 years. However, I also note that the carpet appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy. In taking into account betterment and depreciation I consider it reasonable to compensate the landlord 30% of the claim for the tenant’s breach. The amount ordered of $640.59 is proved.

WALL REPAIRS

The landlord claimed $3289 to remove wallpaper in the bedrooms and hallway and plaster the walls.
An invoice and pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim.
The landlord says the walls were damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of the bedrooms, hallways and the bathroom which show the wallpaper was damaged.
The landlord explained that while not itemised in the invoice the contractor also removed the damaged wallpaper in the bathroom.
In reviewing the photographs, the damage to the walls appears likely to have been intentional. The landlord’s insurance did not cover the damage.
The landlord said the wallpaper was approximately 7 years old. The Tribunal will generally treat wallpaper as having an economic lifespan of 10-12 years. I note that the wallpaper appeared in generally in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy but in some places, it appeared to be wearing.
The amount claimed is for part of the repair of the walls. I was told the landlord attended to the repainting himself and did not claim the additional costs for paint and labour. Because the amount claimed is for part of the repair of the walls, and additional work would have been required to repair the walls, I consider it reasonable to award just under the full amount claimed but make a deduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. The amount ordered is $2,800.

FILING FEE

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

BOND

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2025. The bond has previously been released to the landlord by way of a one-party application to the Bond Centre. The bond was $2,240. The landlord used the bond for: a. Rent arrears to 24 March 2025 - $1,300 b. Damage to a power cord invoiced to the tenant during the tenancy - $130.53. c. 2 smoke alarms - $80. Total - $1,510.53.
The Tribunal did not make any determinations as to these claims.
The balance of the bond was $729.47. This amount is deducted from the amount ordered. The issue of bond was discussed with the landlord at the hearing and this approach was accepted to be fair.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

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 5270081 — net $8,126.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$443.07	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Rubbish removal	$1,663.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$2,487.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: and window repair	$795.00	Lock/key replacement: and window repair
Carpet replacement	$640.59	Carpet replacement
Repairs: Walls	$2,800.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,126.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,126.19

Claims and awards for application 5270081 — net $8,126.19 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal: skip bin

Amount: $443.07
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: skip bin

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,663.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $2,487.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement: and window repair

Amount: $795.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: and window repair

Carpet replacement

Amount: $640.59
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Dismissed claims

The Missing Chattels — DAMAGE – RELEVANT LAW

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Quan Sun And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $8,126.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by phone call.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with the application and notice of the hearing by email. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application form referred to a claim for exemplary damages. This was not pursued at the hearing as the landlord clarified that this claim was to indicate that the tenant had committed an unlawful act of theft.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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.” 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 (including the land) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 3 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs showing a significant amount of rubbish was left in and outside the premises.
The landlord claimed $443.07 for a skip bin. An invoice was provided in support of the claim and I make an order for the full amount claimed.
The landlord said the skip bin did not take all the rubbish left at the premises.
The landlord arranged for a cleaner to undertake further rubbish removal and cleaning. The cleaner invoiced $1,663 for further rubbish removal which included loading the rubbish onto a trailer and taking it to the refuse centre. I was told the amount invoiced included the refuse centres fees and labour. I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven the claim for rubbish removal and award the amount in full.
It appears that a significant amount of the property had been intentionally made dirty. The landlord claimed $2,487 for cleaning. I noted that this was a very high cleaning invoice. The landlord explained that the cleaning undertaken was only to get the premises to a reasonable level for workers to undertake repairs and refurbishment at the property and additional cleaning was undertaken following the work being undertaken on the property. In addition, the landlord said the amount claimed included mowing the lawn, the garden work and removing the dirty and damaged carpet throughout the property. I am satisfied on the evidence that the premises needed significant cleaning to make it safe and sanitary for people to work in the premises and the lawns and garden work was required.
I award the full amount claimed.

LOCKS AND KEYS

The tenant did not return the keys. The amount claimed for lock and key replacement was $795. The amount claimed was supported with an invoice and photographs of the damaged front door and a broken window. The invoice included the reglazing of a window which was damaged in the sunroom which had been completely removed. I am satisfied on the evidence that lock and key replacement was required. I comment further on the claim for the damaged window below under damage claims.

CHATTELS

The landlord claims the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy from a locked area of the property that was not included in the tenancy – collectibles, toys, two ladders’, tools, a lawnmower, and other various items.
The landlord claimed $900 and said the tenant stole these items at the end of the tenancy. A New Zealand Police report was provided by the landlord outlining what was removed. I do not consider this is a claim in respect of the tenant’s tenancy as the items were not taken from a part of the tenancy premises.
No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim. Therefore, if I am wrong in my finding that this is not a dispute related to the tenancy, then I consider insufficient evidence has been provided to prove the details and value of the items alleged to have been stolen.
Accordingly, the claim for the missing chattels is dismissed. DAMAGE – RELEVANT LAW
It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7
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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 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. 10
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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

WINDOW REPAIR

The landlord claimed a window was broken in the sunroom during the tenancy. I have addressed this claim above in relation to the locksmith invoice. Pre- tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim. I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused during the tenancy. The damage appears likely to have been intentional. Accordingly, I award the full amount of the locksmith and glazier invoice.

CARPET DAMAGE

The landlord claimed $2,135.32 for replacing carpet in two bedrooms and the hallway.
The landlord says carpet was damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord says the carpet was damaged throughout the property however they have only claimed part of the carpet replacement. I consider I can only take into account the actual claim and not consider the cost of additional carpet replacement when it has not been claimed as part of the application.
Photographs were provided of the two bedrooms showing they were stained.
There were no compelling photographs provided of the hall carpet to show the level of damage, however I accept that the two bedrooms would have required 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. the greater level of carpet replacement and given the overall state of the carpet throughout the home I accept it likely needed replacement as well.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said insurance did not cover the cost to replace the carpet. It appears more likely that not that the damage to the carpet was intentional.
The landlord said the carpet was approximately 7 years old by the hearing date. The IR265 general depreciation rates states the useful lifespan of carpet is 8 years. However, I also note that the carpet appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy. In taking into account betterment and depreciation I consider it reasonable to compensate the landlord 30% of the claim for the tenant’s breach. The amount ordered of $640.59 is proved.

WALL REPAIRS

The landlord claimed $3289 to remove wallpaper in the bedrooms and hallway and plaster the walls.
An invoice and pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim.
The landlord says the walls were damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of the bedrooms, hallways and the bathroom which show the wallpaper was damaged.
The landlord explained that while not itemised in the invoice the contractor also removed the damaged wallpaper in the bathroom.
In reviewing the photographs, the damage to the walls appears likely to have been intentional. The landlord’s insurance did not cover the damage.
The landlord said the wallpaper was approximately 7 years old. The Tribunal will generally treat wallpaper as having an economic lifespan of 10-12 years. I note that the wallpaper appeared in generally in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy but in some places, it appeared to be wearing.
The amount claimed is for part of the repair of the walls. I was told the landlord attended to the repainting himself and did not claim the additional costs for paint and labour. Because the amount claimed is for part of the repair of the walls, and additional work would have been required to repair the walls, I consider it reasonable to award just under the full amount claimed but make a deduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. The amount ordered is $2,800.

FILING FEE

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

BOND

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2025. The bond has previously been released to the landlord by way of a one-party application to the Bond Centre. The bond was $2,240. The landlord used the bond for: a. Rent arrears to 24 March 2025 - $1,300 b. Damage to a power cord invoiced to the tenant during the tenancy - $130.53. c. 2 smoke alarms - $80. Total - $1,510.53.
The Tribunal did not make any determinations as to these claims.
The balance of the bond was $729.47. This amount is deducted from the amount ordered. The issue of bond was discussed with the landlord at the hearing and this approach was accepted to be fair.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCKS AND KEYS

CHATTELS

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

WINDOW REPAIR

CARPET DAMAGE

WALL REPAIRS

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

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

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCKS AND KEYS

CHATTELS

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

WINDOW REPAIR

CARPET DAMAGE

WALL REPAIRS

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.