What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279039 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5279039?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $152.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $463.45 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $8.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279039?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12545726-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279039 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5279039?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $152.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $463.45 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $8.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279039?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12545726-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9B Guys Hill Road, Napier Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279039 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279039 — net $1,483.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$152.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$310.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$463.45	Window repairs
Smoke alarm battery	$8.57	Smoke alarm battery
Pest control	$172.50	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,483.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,483.52

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was properly served but did not attend the video hearing or answer the calls made to her phones.

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

Did the tenant comply with her 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 (RTA).

The landlord took photos at the end of the tenancy. I can see the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove the rubbish. There was also an infestation of cockroaches.

The landlord had to change the locks during the tenancy because the tenant changed the locks without consent and did not provide the landlord with a set of the new keys.

The landlord had to replace a smoke alarm battery at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Tenants are also responsible 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.

There are a number of claims for repairing the back door and replacing locks after the house was broken into. This happened two or three times. The tenant was not always home and the landlord called the police. Someone was arrested after one of the break ins.

The landlord’s evidence about whether another person lived there with the tenant’s consent, or was only there for one night with her consent, is confusing. The landlord filed trespass notices against the person staying in the house.

The tenancy ended on 5 May 2025, after the landlord gave a 90 day notice. The landlord did not file an application to end the tenancy because of an abandonment even though the landlord suspected the tenant was not living at the house.

All this uncertainty around the end of the tenancy means it is difficult for me to decide if the tenant should pay for damage because other people broke into the house. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage by people at the tenancy premises with the tenant’s consent. Apart from when the tenant replaced the keys without consent, the claims for repairs to the locks and the back door are dismissed.

It seems most likely to me that the tenant was responsible for removing a glass louvre and responsible for doing a poor job of replacing the glass in the front door. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have been provided with an invoice. This claim is proved and allowed.

There is a claim for fixing the toilet seat, which was broken at the end of the tenancy, and for more repairs to the back door. These claims are not allowed. The reason for allowing compensation is so the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations. The landlord should not be better or worse off. The toilet seat and the back door were very old and worn at the start of the tenancy. Any order for these repairs would mean the tenant paying for improvements. These claims are dismissed. Filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279039 — net $1,483.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$152.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$310.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$463.45	Window repairs
Smoke alarm battery	$8.57	Smoke alarm battery
Pest control	$172.50	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,483.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,483.52

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Ezi-Rentals Limited As Agent For Hokowhare Ltd $1,483.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was properly served but did not attend the video hearing or answer the calls made to her phones.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 (RTA).
The landlord took photos at the end of the tenancy. I can see the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove the rubbish. There was also an infestation of cockroaches.
The landlord had to change the locks during the tenancy because the tenant changed the locks without consent and did not provide the landlord with a set of the new keys.
The landlord had to replace a smoke alarm battery at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are also responsible 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.
There are a number of claims for repairing the back door and replacing locks after the house was broken into. This happened two or three times. The tenant was not always home and the landlord called the police. Someone was arrested after one of the break ins.
The landlord’s evidence about whether another person lived there with the tenant’s consent, or was only there for one night with her consent, is confusing. The landlord filed trespass notices against the person staying in the house.
The tenancy ended on 5 May 2025, after the landlord gave a 90 day notice. The landlord did not file an application to end the tenancy because of an abandonment even though the landlord suspected the tenant was not living at the house.
All this uncertainty around the end of the tenancy means it is difficult for me to decide if the tenant should pay for damage because other people broke into the house. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage by people at the tenancy premises with the tenant’s consent. Apart from when the tenant replaced the keys without consent, the claims for repairs to the locks and the back door are dismissed.
It seems most likely to me that the tenant was responsible for removing a glass louvre and responsible for doing a poor job of replacing the glass in the front door. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have been provided with an invoice. This claim is proved and allowed.
There is a claim for fixing the toilet seat, which was broken at the end of the tenancy, and for more repairs to the back door. These claims are not allowed. The reason for allowing compensation is so the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations. The landlord should not be better or worse off. The toilet seat and the back door were very old and worn at the start of the tenancy. Any order for these repairs would mean the tenant paying for improvements. These claims are dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279039 — Property damage at 9B Guys Hill Road, Napier Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279039 — Property damage at 9B Guys Hill Road, Napier Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Did the tenant comply with her 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.