How much money was awarded in case 5273540?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,045.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Floor: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Walls - Repainting: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12731939-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5273540?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,045.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Floor: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Walls - Repainting: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12731939-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Bath Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273540 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273540 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273540 — net $1,802.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,045.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$210.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Bedroom floor	$105.00	Repairs: Bedroom floor
Repairs: Walls - repainting	$600.00	Repairs: Walls - repainting
Net award	$1,802.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,802.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David Patchett & Elma Patchett $1,802.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,260.00 (BN-00020509) to Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David Patchett & Elma Patchett immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records and which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,045.00.

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.

The tenant left most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy but there were some areas missed that required some further cleaning. This mainly pertains to the bedroom that had contents in while the tenant cleaner completed their tasks earlier, and the kitchen floor and dishwasher. The invoice of $200.00 is apportioned with $75.00 considered reasonable compensation for the minor tenant omissions as evidenced.

The gardens required attention and the photos provided supported the claim for $210.00 as invoiced. This is awarded.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Scratches to a bedroom wooden floor. These marks were visibility apparent, and the landlord repaired the marks at an invoiced cost of $105.00 – this is awarded. b. Repainting walls – a number of walls had holes from fixtures, paint flaked off and scuff marks from furniture or others such bumps. The premises had suffered a fire event and related damage prior to this tenancy. The owner had repainted the walls just before this 15-month tenancy. I have no evidence of the cost and approach at that time, but the exit photos show some evidence of a surface preparation and paint finish that might have been less than robust given the apparent damage at the end. The invoice claimed 10 hours at $120.00 per hour. That invoice was not from a tradesperson but a related company of the owners. Given the lack of clarity of the repainting location and effort involved, and what I consider evidence of susceptibility of the wall finish to damage and a lack of robustness to enable the removal of scuff marks, I make a part-award of $600.00 to reflect tenant liability for the fixture holes or markings, and some of the wall markings above expected wear and tear.

The damages above are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The claim for the hob replacement is dismissed. The damage is considered minor and it is not proven as due to any careless activities of the tenant in what is a hard-working area of the kitchen. The age and model/cost of the existing hob is uncertain and the replacement hob is not defined except by a single line invoice of cost with no product details. The invoice is from a company associated with the owners and not likely to be considered “in trade” regarding electrical appliance replacement. I do not consider the applicant has established liability above wear and tear, or even if I am wrong, evidenced a loss to the required standard. Filing fee

Because Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David Patchett & Elma Patchett has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273540 — net $1,802.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,045.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$210.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Bedroom floor	$105.00	Repairs: Bedroom floor
Repairs: Walls - repainting	$600.00	Repairs: Walls - repainting
Net award	$1,802.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,802.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David Patchett & Elma Patchett $1,802.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,260.00 (BN-00020509) to Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David Patchett & Elma Patchett immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records and which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,045.00.

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.
The tenant left most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy but there were some areas missed that required some further cleaning. This mainly pertains to the bedroom that had contents in while the tenant cleaner completed their tasks earlier, and the kitchen floor and dishwasher. The invoice of $200.00 is apportioned with $75.00 considered reasonable compensation for the minor tenant omissions as evidenced.
The gardens required attention and the photos provided supported the claim for $210.00 as invoiced. This is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Scratches to a bedroom wooden floor. These marks were visibility apparent, and the landlord repaired the marks at an invoiced cost of $105.00 – this is awarded. b. Repainting walls – a number of walls had holes from fixtures, paint flaked off and scuff marks from furniture or others such bumps. The premises had suffered a fire event and related damage prior to this tenancy. The owner had repainted the walls just before this 15-month tenancy. I have no evidence of the cost and approach at that time, but the exit photos show some evidence of a surface preparation and paint finish that might have been less than robust given the apparent damage at the end. The invoice claimed 10 hours at $120.00 per hour. That invoice was not from a tradesperson but a related company of the owners. Given the lack of clarity of the repainting location and effort involved, and what I consider evidence of susceptibility of the wall finish to damage and a lack of robustness to enable the removal of scuff marks, I make a part-award of $600.00 to reflect tenant liability for the fixture holes or markings, and some of the wall markings above expected wear and tear.
The damages above are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The claim for the hob replacement is dismissed. The damage is considered minor and it is not proven as due to any careless activities of the tenant in what is a hard-working area of the kitchen. The age and model/cost of the existing hob is uncertain and the replacement hob is not defined except by a single line invoice of cost with no product details. The invoice is from a company associated with the owners and not likely to be considered “in trade” regarding electrical appliance replacement. I do not consider the applicant has established liability above wear and tear, or even if I am wrong, evidenced a loss to the required standard. Filing fee
Because Team Group Rentals Limited - As Agent For David Patchett & Elma Patchett has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273540 — Rent arrears at 51 Bath Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273540 — Rent arrears at 51 Bath Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.