How much money was awarded in case 5278655?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $445.62 awarded to landlord; Repaint: $1,161.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains and bl…: $206.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278655?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12659795-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5278655?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $445.62 awarded to landlord; Repaint: $1,161.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains and bl…: $206.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278655?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12659795-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 93 St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278655 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5278655 — net $1,840.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Repaint	$1,161.50	Repairs: Repaint
Repairs: Carpet	$445.62	Repairs: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Curtains and blinds	$206.25	Replace furnishings: Curtains and blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,840.37
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,840.37

Order

Airedale Residential Limited to pay Shaun Mostyn Francois $1,840.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (6466716-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Shaun Mostyn Francois: $1,840.37 Airedale Residential Limited: $459.63
The landlord’s claims for servicing of the heat pump and for cleaning are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Shaun Francois with Helena Gilligan as a support person. The tenant was represented by Devante Fuli-Roache.
The landlord has applied for damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) defines landlord as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a)a prospective landlord; and (b)a former landlord; and (c)a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises; and (d)the personal representative of a deceased landlord; and (e)an agent of a landlord
On 19 October 2022, Airedale Residential Limited (“ARL”) signed a tenancy agreement as a tenant for the above premises, with a property manager “the PM”. The tenancy began on 24 October 2022 and ended on 31 October 2024 when ARL signed a new tenancy agreement with Mr Francois himself as the landlord.
It was the intention of all parties that ARL would sublet the premises. Clauses to this effect were included in the tenancy agreements, such as In Clause 1 of the “Additional Terms of Agreement” in which ARL and Mr Francois expressly contract into the Tenancy Tribunal having jurisdiction to hear and resolve disputes.
This means that for the initial tenancy arrangement from 24 October 2022 until 31 October 2024, there were four parties to the arrangement: a. Mr Francois the owner, b. The PM, the Landlord/ property manager (as the grantor of the tenancy of the premises under agreement), c. ARL the tenant, d. ARL’s tenants, “the subtenants”.
After two years of this arrangement, Mr Francois who had been living overseas returned to New Zealand, terminated his contract with the PM and took over managing the relationship with ARL himself. A new tenancy agreement with Mr Francois as the landlord and ARL as the tenant was signed and remained effective until the end of the tenancy seven months later.
For this second tenancy arrangement there were three parties: a. Mr Francois the owner and landlord, b. ARL the tenant, c. ARL’s tenants, “the subtenants”.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy, the premises were highly contaminated with residue from cigarette smoke. The landlord claims the walls and ceiling throughout the premises, (with the exception of the bathroom and one bedroom which had been repainted) and the curtains and blinds were discoloured with nicotine staining. The whole of the house including the upstairs carpet was permeated with a strong smell of stale cigarette smoke.
The landlord said that the premises had been freshly renovated just prior to them purchasing it in February 2022. The landlord produced eight photographs from the start of the first tenancy period in 2022 which show the premises to be in excellent condition, and eleven photographs from the end of the second tenancy period in 2025, which show the walls and ceiling to be discoloured with yellow stains, the curtains to be dirty, a set of venetian blinds to be chipped, a dirty sock, a dirty heat pump and a rubbish bin full of rubbish.
The landlord has obtained quotations for repair work, but hasn’t yet undertaken any of the work other than cleaning.
The landlord is claiming the following compensation: a. Repainting walls and ceiling $9,292.00, b. Replace upstairs carpet $3,565.00, c. Replace blinds and curtains $1,650.00, d. Servicing the heatpump $2,413.00, e. Cleaning $750.00.
During the tenancy the landlord confirmed that his claims only cover the period for which he was the landlord, that is 7 months of the two years and 7 months that ARL was the tenant. That is very close to one fifth of the total time ARL was tenant. This is a point that I return to at paragraph 31.

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose, and also 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 start of tenancy photographs and the end of tenancy photographs show a marked deterioration in the condition of the walls, ceiling, blinds and curtains over the course of the tenancy.
The tenant today said that prior to the premises being returned to the landlord they had been professionally cleaned. This evidently had not had much effect on the staining on the walls and ceiling.
After the end of the tenancy, the landlord raised their concerns about the condition of the walls, carpet, blinds and curtains, heat pump and rubbish, in an email to the tenant on 19 May 2025.
On 21 May 2025, the tenant responded that they considered cleaning the curtains would address the odours. No response was made concerning the carpet.
Today the landlord said that he personally cleaned the carpet with a Rug Doctor machine but it failed to remove the odour of cigarette smoke. He also said that he used sugar soap to wash some of the walls, but that failed to remove the stains or the smell. The landlord said that following consultation with a professional painter he learnt that nicotine stains require painting with two coats of specific nicotine stain and odour paint primer, before applying a finishing coat.
Today the tenant responded on several occasions that he was unable to comment on the claims being made by the landlord, as he personally hadn’t managed the property, and he personally hadn’t been into the property or seen or smelled the damage first hand.
The tenant said the landlord hadn’t raised the issue of smoking inside the premises during any of the inspections, of which there were few. The landlord pointed out that there was an express condition at clause 11 of the Additional Terms of Agreement prohibiting smoking anywhere in the premises.
Because the tenant did not have any information negating the claims being made by the landlord regarding the walls and ceilings or the odour of stale cigarette smoke throughout the premises including in the walls, curtains and carpet, this information is unchallenged.
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I am persuaded the walls, curtains and carpet have a strong odour of stale cigarette smoke that cannot be removed with cleaning.
On the information before me today, I am also persuaded that cleaning has not been sufficient to remediate the problem; The problem therefore is not an issue of cleanliness, it amounts to a permanent change to the walls, curtains and carpet. I am persuaded this amounts to damage.
The tenant disputed that it is certain the damage has been caused by cigarette smoke, but I do not consider an expert is necessary to determine cigarette smoke residue; I accept the landlord’s information that the damage has been caused by heavy smoking indoors with minimal ventilation. I am also persuaded the damage exceeds normal fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved carelessness or intention. The claims regarding the walls, the curtains and the carpet are proved.
The landlord is also claiming for chips to a venetian blind. The landlord said he was unable to comment on them as he hadn’t seen them.
I determine the damage to the blind exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved carelessness. The claim is proved.
I must take into consideration 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. I have referred to the Inland Revenue Department’s Depreciation Schedule in calculating these amounts.
Having calculated the loss to the landlord, I note that this claim only covers 7 months or one fifth of the entire time that ARL was the tenant. If the damage was caused gradually across the entire tenancy, (and in the absence of any information to the contrary I determine that this is what happened) then the 7- month tenancy in question only accounts for one fifth of the damage. The remainder of the damage occurred under a different tenancy agreement with a different party.
That other party isn’t present today, hasn’t been joined as a party to this dispute, or been given formal notice of the dispute. Nor has it been determined which of the agreements in place under that previous tenancy could be subject to determination in the Tenancy Tribunal.
Because one fifth of the damage occurred under the tenancy agreement before the Tribunal today, it follows that the maximum I can award is one fifth of the total amount of compensation for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord is claiming $750.00 for ten hours cleaning following the end of the tenancy.
Putting aside the damage which has already been addressed, I am not persuaded the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Even noting the landlord’s dirty sock from walking through the apartment, the photographs produced do not go far enough to show the premises to not be reasonably clean and tidy. That is not to say I accept the premises did not require a deep clean at the end of the tenancy; they may have needed that. But that is not the standard that a tenant must return premises in. This claim is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $2,413.85 for servicing the heat pump. The landlord was not able to comment on how often the heat pump needs servicing or when it was last serviced. A quick search online suggests that heat pumps need to be serviced at least every 12 months. Given these tenancies lasted 31 months, I am not persuaded that it was the tenant’s responsibility to service the heat pump at the end of this tenancy.
Because Shaun Mostyn Francois has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5278655 — net $1,840.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Repaint	$1,161.50	Repairs: Repaint
Repairs: Carpet	$445.62	Repairs: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Curtains and blinds	$206.25	Replace furnishings: Curtains and blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,840.37
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,840.37

Airedale Residential Limited to pay Shaun Mostyn Francois $1,840.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (6466716-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Shaun Mostyn Francois: $1,840.37 Airedale Residential Limited: $459.63

The landlord’s claims for servicing of the heat pump and for cleaning are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Shaun Francois with Helena Gilligan as a support person. The tenant was represented by Devante Fuli-Roache.

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

The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) defines landlord as: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a)a prospective landlord; and (b)a former landlord; and (c)a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises; and (d)the personal representative of a deceased landlord; and (e)an agent of a landlord

On 19 October 2022, Airedale Residential Limited (“ARL”) signed a tenancy agreement as a tenant for the above premises, with a property manager “the PM”. The tenancy began on 24 October 2022 and ended on 31 October 2024 when ARL signed a new tenancy agreement with Mr Francois himself as the landlord.

It was the intention of all parties that ARL would sublet the premises. Clauses to this effect were included in the tenancy agreements, such as In Clause 1 of the “Additional Terms of Agreement” in which ARL and Mr Francois expressly contract into the Tenancy Tribunal having jurisdiction to hear and resolve disputes.

This means that for the initial tenancy arrangement from 24 October 2022 until 31 October 2024, there were four parties to the arrangement: a. Mr Francois the owner, b. The PM, the Landlord/ property manager (as the grantor of the tenancy of the premises under agreement), c. ARL the tenant, d. ARL’s tenants, “the subtenants”.

After two years of this arrangement, Mr Francois who had been living overseas returned to New Zealand, terminated his contract with the PM and took over managing the relationship with ARL himself. A new tenancy agreement with Mr Francois as the landlord and ARL as the tenant was signed and remained effective until the end of the tenancy seven months later.

For this second tenancy arrangement there were three parties: a. Mr Francois the owner and landlord, b. ARL the tenant, c. ARL’s tenants, “the subtenants”.

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy, the premises were highly contaminated with residue from cigarette smoke. The landlord claims the walls and ceiling throughout the premises, (with the exception of the bathroom and one bedroom which had been repainted) and the curtains and blinds were discoloured with nicotine staining. The whole of the house including the upstairs carpet was permeated with a strong smell of stale cigarette smoke.

The landlord said that the premises had been freshly renovated just prior to them purchasing it in February 2022. The landlord produced eight photographs from the start of the first tenancy period in 2022 which show the premises to be in excellent condition, and eleven photographs from the end of the second tenancy period in 2025, which show the walls and ceiling to be discoloured with yellow stains, the curtains to be dirty, a set of venetian blinds to be chipped, a dirty sock, a dirty heat pump and a rubbish bin full of rubbish.

The landlord has obtained quotations for repair work, but hasn’t yet undertaken any of the work other than cleaning.

The landlord is claiming the following compensation: a. Repainting walls and ceiling $9,292.00, b. Replace upstairs carpet $3,565.00, c. Replace blinds and curtains $1,650.00, d. Servicing the heatpump $2,413.00, e. Cleaning $750.00.

During the tenancy the landlord confirmed that his claims only cover the period for which he was the landlord, that is 7 months of the two years and 7 months that ARL was the tenant. That is very close to one fifth of the total time ARL was tenant. This is a point that I return to at paragraph 31.

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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose, and also 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 start of tenancy photographs and the end of tenancy photographs show a marked deterioration in the condition of the walls, ceiling, blinds and curtains over the course of the tenancy.

The tenant today said that prior to the premises being returned to the landlord they had been professionally cleaned. This evidently had not had much effect on the staining on the walls and ceiling.

After the end of the tenancy, the landlord raised their concerns about the condition of the walls, carpet, blinds and curtains, heat pump and rubbish, in an email to the tenant on 19 May 2025.

On 21 May 2025, the tenant responded that they considered cleaning the curtains would address the odours. No response was made concerning the carpet.

Today the landlord said that he personally cleaned the carpet with a Rug Doctor machine but it failed to remove the odour of cigarette smoke. He also said that he used sugar soap to wash some of the walls, but that failed to remove the stains or the smell. The landlord said that following consultation with a professional painter he learnt that nicotine stains require painting with two coats of specific nicotine stain and odour paint primer, before applying a finishing coat.

Today the tenant responded on several occasions that he was unable to comment on the claims being made by the landlord, as he personally hadn’t managed the property, and he personally hadn’t been into the property or seen or smelled the damage first hand.

The tenant said the landlord hadn’t raised the issue of smoking inside the premises during any of the inspections, of which there were few. The landlord pointed out that there was an express condition at clause 11 of the Additional Terms of Agreement prohibiting smoking anywhere in the premises.

Because the tenant did not have any information negating the claims being made by the landlord regarding the walls and ceilings or the odour of stale cigarette smoke throughout the premises including in the walls, curtains and carpet, this information is unchallenged.

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I am persuaded the walls, curtains and carpet have a strong odour of stale cigarette smoke that cannot be removed with cleaning.

On the information before me today, I am also persuaded that cleaning has not been sufficient to remediate the problem; The problem therefore is not an issue of cleanliness, it amounts to a permanent change to the walls, curtains and carpet. I am persuaded this amounts to damage.

The tenant disputed that it is certain the damage has been caused by cigarette smoke, but I do not consider an expert is necessary to determine cigarette smoke residue; I accept the landlord’s information that the damage has been caused by heavy smoking indoors with minimal ventilation. I am also persuaded the damage exceeds normal fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved carelessness or intention. The claims regarding the walls, the curtains and the carpet are proved.

The landlord is also claiming for chips to a venetian blind. The landlord said he was unable to comment on them as he hadn’t seen them.

I determine the damage to the blind exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved carelessness. The claim is proved.

I must take into consideration 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. I have referred to the Inland Revenue Department’s Depreciation Schedule in calculating these amounts.

Having calculated the loss to the landlord, I note that this claim only covers 7 months or one fifth of the entire time that ARL was the tenant. If the damage was caused gradually across the entire tenancy, (and in the absence of any information to the contrary I determine that this is what happened) then the 7- month tenancy in question only accounts for one fifth of the damage. The remainder of the damage occurred under a different tenancy agreement with a different party.

That other party isn’t present today, hasn’t been joined as a party to this dispute, or been given formal notice of the dispute. Nor has it been determined which of the agreements in place under that previous tenancy could be subject to determination in the Tenancy Tribunal.

Because one fifth of the damage occurred under the tenancy agreement before the Tribunal today, it follows that the maximum I can award is one fifth of the total amount of compensation for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord is claiming $750.00 for ten hours cleaning following the end of the tenancy.

Putting aside the damage which has already been addressed, I am not persuaded the premises were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Even noting the landlord’s dirty sock from walking through the apartment, the photographs produced do not go far enough to show the premises to not be reasonably clean and tidy. That is not to say I accept the premises did not require a deep clean at the end of the tenancy; they may have needed that. But that is not the standard that a tenant must return premises in. This claim is not proved.

The landlord is claiming $2,413.85 for servicing the heat pump. The landlord was not able to comment on how often the heat pump needs servicing or when it was last serviced. A quick search online suggests that heat pumps need to be serviced at least every 12 months. Given these tenancies lasted 31 months, I am not persuaded that it was the tenant’s responsibility to service the heat pump at the end of this tenancy.

Because Shaun Mostyn Francois has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278655 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 93 St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278655 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 93 St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278655 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 93 St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278655 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 93 St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions