What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279109 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5279109?

Property Damage: $231.16 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $217.07 awarded to landlord; Removing Green Waste And Additional…: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,060.00 awarded to landlord; Doors And Frames: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; To Spouting And Down Pipes: $1,090.67 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,224.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279109?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12698883-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279109 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5279109?

Property Damage: $231.16 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $217.07 awarded to landlord; Removing Green Waste And Additional…: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,060.00 awarded to landlord; Doors And Frames: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; To Spouting And Down Pipes: $1,090.67 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,224.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279109?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12698883-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Rodney Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279109 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

20 Rodney Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279109 — 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 5279109 — net $5,410.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board	$231.16	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board
Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025	$1,060.00	Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025
Lock/key replacement	$217.07	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: garage and house	$1,224.75	Rubbish removal: garage and house
Repairs: doors and frames	$1,000.00	Repairs: doors and frames
Removing green waste and additional fencing	$1,840.00	Removing green waste and additional fencing
Repairs: to spouting and down pipes	$1,090.67	Repairs: to spouting and down pipes
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,410.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,410.65

Claims and awards for application 5279109 — net $5,410.65 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board

Amount: $231.16
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board

Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025

Amount: $1,060.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $217.07
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal: garage and house

Amount: $1,224.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: garage and house

Repairs: doors and frames

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For David Calderwood $5,410.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (5219992-011) to Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For David Calderwood immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls to his phone.
This tenancy lasted five years. 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 tenant gave a 21 day notice due to end on 22 June 2025. He moved out before the end of the 21 days and the landlord changed the locks when he found the house unsecured. I find the tenant should rent in lieu of notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 22 June 2025.

Did the tenant comply with his 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).
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos taken at the end of tenancy. I can see the tenant did not remove all of his rubbish, furniture, and belongings at the end of the tenancy. There was also a large amount of green waste stacked behind a long fence which the tenant also installed. The claims for rubbish removal and for removing the fence and green waste are proved and allowed.
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved.
The claims for 10 light shades and covers for two of the fire places are not allowed because there is no evidence these were present at the start of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed compensation for the cost of repairing damage. The 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 he 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.
There is a claim for replacement carpet in the lounge and bedrooms. The landlord said the tenant removed the carpet from three of the bedrooms during the tenancy without getting permission. There are two problems with this claim. The first is the invoice includes the lounge and there was no carpet in the lounge at the start of the tenancy. The landlord suggested I divide the invoice by four but that is not a fair way to estimate the costs because it seems likely the lounge was the biggest room.
Secondly, even though the tenant should not have removed the carpet, any order for compensation should return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations. This means the landlord should not be better or worse off. The property condition report from the start of the tenancy records there were stains on the carpet in all three rooms. It seems any order I make for replacement carpet would mean the landlord was better off. This is not allowed and so the claim for replacement carpet is dismissed.
There is a large claim for just over $8,800 for repairs to the house. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with photos taken at the start and the end of the tenancy. The claims for the cupboard door and the door handles are dismissed because there is no evidence the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The claims for the missing kitchen drawers and the bathtub seratone are not allowed because the drawers and the bathtub were so old that any replacement would mean the landlord was better off. The claims for the shower, the hall wall, the ceiling access hatch and the kitchen wall are not allowed because the photos do not prove the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The claim to supply and install curtains is not allowed because the curtains were at least five years old and I have to take betterment and depreciation into account. To calculate depreciation I need to know the age of the curtains and the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy. This information was not available so the claim is dismissed.
The landlord said the tenant painted over the lounge light fitting and the switchboard. An electrician had to replace the fitting and check the switchboard. I have seen photos and the damage was not wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount claimed is reasonable and the claim is proved.
The landlord said the tenant removed spouting and some of the down pipes. The photos are not clear but the invoice refers to the damage. I find the damage was more than wear and tear and I have not heard any evidence from the tenant. This claim is proved.
The large claims for repairs to the garage and to replace dirt and a concrete lip are not allowed. The garage was very old and in a poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord could not provide me with any photos showing that the excavated dirt or damage the concrete lip. The landlord has not proved the damage happened during the tenancy or that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. These claims are dismissed.
The claim for panting inside the house is not allowed because the walls were in such a poor condition at the start of the tenancy that the tenant would be paying for an improvement.
There is a claim for new lino in the dining room. The landlord could not provide any photos of the damage and the claim is dismissed.
I have allowed an estimated amount for repairs to two doors and for some painting where the tenant scraped the paint off a window sill and around the front door. This is because there is evidence there was damage during the tenancy, the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The invoices do not specify an amount just for this work so I have estimated an amount that seems reasonable to me. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

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 5279109 — net $5,410.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board	$231.16	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board
Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025	$1,060.00	Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025
Lock/key replacement	$217.07	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: garage and house	$1,224.75	Rubbish removal: garage and house
Repairs: doors and frames	$1,000.00	Repairs: doors and frames
Removing green waste and additional fencing	$1,840.00	Removing green waste and additional fencing
Repairs: to spouting and down pipes	$1,090.67	Repairs: to spouting and down pipes
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,410.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,410.65

Claims and awards for application 5279109 — net $5,410.65 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board

Amount: $231.16
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrical fittings replacement/repair: lounge light and switch board

Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025

Amount: $1,060.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice to 22 June 2025

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $217.07
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal: garage and house

Amount: $1,224.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: garage and house

Repairs: doors and frames

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For David Calderwood $5,410.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (5219992-011) to Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For David Calderwood immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls to his phone.
This tenancy lasted five years. 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 tenant gave a 21 day notice due to end on 22 June 2025. He moved out before the end of the 21 days and the landlord changed the locks when he found the house unsecured. I find the tenant should rent in lieu of notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 22 June 2025.

Did the tenant comply with his 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).
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos taken at the end of tenancy. I can see the tenant did not remove all of his rubbish, furniture, and belongings at the end of the tenancy. There was also a large amount of green waste stacked behind a long fence which the tenant also installed. The claims for rubbish removal and for removing the fence and green waste are proved and allowed.
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved.
The claims for 10 light shades and covers for two of the fire places are not allowed because there is no evidence these were present at the start of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed compensation for the cost of repairing damage. The 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 he 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.
There is a claim for replacement carpet in the lounge and bedrooms. The landlord said the tenant removed the carpet from three of the bedrooms during the tenancy without getting permission. There are two problems with this claim. The first is the invoice includes the lounge and there was no carpet in the lounge at the start of the tenancy. The landlord suggested I divide the invoice by four but that is not a fair way to estimate the costs because it seems likely the lounge was the biggest room.
Secondly, even though the tenant should not have removed the carpet, any order for compensation should return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations. This means the landlord should not be better or worse off. The property condition report from the start of the tenancy records there were stains on the carpet in all three rooms. It seems any order I make for replacement carpet would mean the landlord was better off. This is not allowed and so the claim for replacement carpet is dismissed.
There is a large claim for just over $8,800 for repairs to the house. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with photos taken at the start and the end of the tenancy. The claims for the cupboard door and the door handles are dismissed because there is no evidence the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The claims for the missing kitchen drawers and the bathtub seratone are not allowed because the drawers and the bathtub were so old that any replacement would mean the landlord was better off. The claims for the shower, the hall wall, the ceiling access hatch and the kitchen wall are not allowed because the photos do not prove the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The claim to supply and install curtains is not allowed because the curtains were at least five years old and I have to take betterment and depreciation into account. To calculate depreciation I need to know the age of the curtains and the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy. This information was not available so the claim is dismissed.
The landlord said the tenant painted over the lounge light fitting and the switchboard. An electrician had to replace the fitting and check the switchboard. I have seen photos and the damage was not wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount claimed is reasonable and the claim is proved.
The landlord said the tenant removed spouting and some of the down pipes. The photos are not clear but the invoice refers to the damage. I find the damage was more than wear and tear and I have not heard any evidence from the tenant. This claim is proved.
The large claims for repairs to the garage and to replace dirt and a concrete lip are not allowed. The garage was very old and in a poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord could not provide me with any photos showing that the excavated dirt or damage the concrete lip. The landlord has not proved the damage happened during the tenancy or that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. These claims are dismissed.
The claim for panting inside the house is not allowed because the walls were in such a poor condition at the start of the tenancy that the tenant would be paying for an improvement.
There is a claim for new lino in the dining room. The landlord could not provide any photos of the damage and the claim is dismissed.
I have allowed an estimated amount for repairs to two doors and for some painting where the tenant scraped the paint off a window sill and around the front door. This is because there is evidence there was damage during the tenancy, the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The invoices do not specify an amount just for this work so I have estimated an amount that seems reasonable to me. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279109 — Property damage at 20 Rodney Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279109 — Property damage at 20 Rodney Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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