What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275439 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5275439?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,275.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275439?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394735-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275439 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5275439?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,275.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275439?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12394735-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

781 Wharehine Road, Wharehine, RD 3, Wellsford 0973 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275439 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275439 — net $2,902.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven replacement (depreciated	$1,275.00	Oven replacement (depreciated
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$800.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,902.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,902.00

The landlords attended the hearing at the scheduled hearing time. There was no appearance by the tenant. The hearing of the landlord’s application continued in the absence of the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The house is a two-level, 3-bedroom dwelling dating back to circa 1929. The is an ensuite upstairs and a bathroom/toilet downstairs. The landlords have owned the property for approximately 22 years.

The tenants vacated the property on 5 March 2025. The rent of $720.00 per week included power.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photographic evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The evidence clearly confirms significant rubbish, junk and other belongings left behind by the tenants. The premises also required extensive cleaning. The landlord claims that it took approximately two weeks to clean the property.

The landlord had to remove the rubbish and junk. They did not hire a jumbo bin to remove everything but instead spent significant time using their own vehicles to remove all items from the property. They claim for their time to remove everything left behind by the tenants. They also had family and friends help them.

Although the applicant has not provided an invoice for the cleaning and rubbish removal costs, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cleaning was necessary and that the claimed amounts are reasonable.

The applicant has provided credible evidence, including photographs of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy and a detailed breakdown of the cleaning and rubbish removal undertaken.

In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has incurred a genuine loss and that the amount claimed reflects a reasonable cost for the work required. Accordingly, the claim for cleaning and rubbish removal costs is allowed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 landlord says that the tenant damaged the oven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord provided photographic exit inspection photos taken on or about 6 March 2025. The landlord stated during the hearing that they replaced the stove in August 2022 with a brand-new stove purchased from United Appliances. The cost of this replacement stove was $1699.00 and lasted approximately two years before it had to be replaced due to damage.

The landlords claim the amount of $1699.00 minus depreciation. The landlord also provided a report from United Appliances dated 23 January 2025 confirming the damage to the stove. I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the damage to the stove. I have also sighted the invoice for the new stove from United Appliances dated 8 August 2022.

The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to the stove, which was only two years old at the start of the tenancy. The evidence provided, including photographs and a damage report, establishes that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. Given the relatively new age of the stove, I am satisfied that the landlord has suffered a genuine loss. Applying the Tribunal’s depreciation guidelines, a two-year-old stove retains most of its value, and the landlord is entitled to compensation based on the reasonable cost of repair or replacement, less any appropriate allowance for depreciation.

Accordingly, the claim for damage to the stove is allowed.

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.

The remaining claims relating to vacated repairs, damage to water tank and sub letting without permission are dismissed for want of evidence.

Because [The applicant/s] have had some success with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. They have partly succeeded with their application and for this reason I allow their request for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275439 — net $2,902.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven replacement (depreciated	$1,275.00	Oven replacement (depreciated
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$800.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,902.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,902.00

The landlords attended the hearing at the scheduled hearing time. There was no appearance by the tenant. The hearing of the landlord’s application continued in the absence of the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The house is a two-level, 3-bedroom dwelling dating back to circa 1929. The is an ensuite upstairs and a bathroom/toilet downstairs. The landlords have owned the property for approximately 22 years.

The tenants vacated the property on 5 March 2025. The rent of $720.00 per week included power.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The applicant has provided credible evidence, including photographs of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy and a detailed breakdown of the cleaning and rubbish removal undertaken.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says that the tenant damaged the oven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Accordingly, the claim for damage to the stove is allowed.

The remaining claims relating to vacated repairs, damage to water tank and sub letting without permission are dismissed for want of evidence.

Because [The applicant/s] have had some success with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. They have partly succeeded with their application and for this reason I allow their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275439 — Property damage at 781 Wharehine Road, Wharehine, RD 3, Wellsford 0973

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275439 — Property damage at 781 Wharehine Road, Wharehine, RD 3, Wellsford 0973

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions