How much money was awarded in case 5280462?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.98 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $229.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,306.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280462?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12343888-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5280462?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.98 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $229.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,306.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280462?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12343888-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280462 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280462 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280462 — net $2,088.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$229.48	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$225.98	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Repair damage, patch, and paint	$1,200.00	Repairs: Repair damage, patch, and paint
Rubbish removal	$1,306.25	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages - interfering with a means of escape	$500.00	Exemplary damages - interfering with a means of escape
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,088.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,088.71

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jessie Jordan Wati and Letisha Faye Teegan Gerrard must pay [The landlord/s] $2,088.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Background and

Reasons

[Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.

The tenants did not appear. Ms Watti, one of the tenant’s, contacted the Registry on Monday 11 August 2025 confirming she was aware of the hearing but indicated she was unable to attend. No reasons were provided. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

The tenancy commenced on 7 September 2021 and was periodic.

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2025 after the landlord served a 42-day notice.

On 10 June 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking: a. Rent arrears. b. Compensation: i. Lock change and replacement keys. ii. Plumbing costs. iii. Repairs and painting. iv. Cleaning. v. Skip bin hire and rubbish removal costs. vi. Garden waste removal and tidying. c. Exemplary damages. d. Refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. e. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Claim 1 – Rent arrears

The tenancy ended on 24 March 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $229.48. The amount claimed is awarded. Claim 2 – Lock change and replacement keys

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, see section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act.

The landlord seeks compensation of $225.98 after paying a contractor to change the locks at the property.

The landlord said he made the decision to have the locks changed as the tenant’s had not returned their keys, had stopped communicating with him, and had left the property empty, unlocked and open. The landlord said he did not know if the keys had been left inside the property and uplifted by a third party which was a security risk.

The question the Tribunal must determine is whether the tenant is liable for the cost of the lock change. Tenants are liable for the cost of a lock change where they fail to return keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy.

In this case the tenant’s failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. I do not find there was an obligation on the landlord to make enquiries with the tenant as to the whereabouts of the keys. Given the tenant’s previous lack of communication, failure to return the keys and failure to leave the premises securely locked I find that it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the locks to be changed.

The amount ordered is proved. Claim 3 – Plumbing costs

The landlord seeks compensation of $100.00 after paying a contractor to clear the gully trap at the property. The landlord provided an invoice totalling $300.96 which includes general maintenance costs that the landlord is not seeking.

The invoice notes that the kitchen gully trap was full of food waste and some sticks which the landlord claims the tenant is responsible for.

Section 45(1)(b) sets out the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

The landlord has not suggested that the food waste and sticks found in the gully trap had blocked the drain. The evidence suggests that the gully trap was inspected as part of routine maintenance. On that basis the Tribunal finds that the tenant is not liable for the cost of clearing the gully trap. The claim is dismissed. Claim 4 – Repairs and painting

The landlord seeks compensation for remediation to the external trellis, and interior walls of the property. The landlord seeks $1265.00 for the cost of undertaking that work and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.

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 of the Act.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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 provided pre-tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the trellis attached to the porch and in good condition. The interior photographs show the walls to be in good condition except for one small crack of missing paint in a bedroom.

The end of tenancy photographs show the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The trellis was missing from its original position and was located under a pile of garden waste. There are holes in the wall in the hallway, damage to the walls in the bathroom where areas of the surface have been removed and patches of adhesive tape remain. The walls throughout the rest of the property show scrape marks, gouges, areas of missing paint and scribble marks. A wall light is missing from a bedroom, the phone jack has been ripped out of the wall and the buttons on the HRV panel are depressed and broken.

The Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The amount of $1200.00 is awarded. The Tribunal deducts $65.00 from the amount claimed as the invoice records that the towel rail was never correctly screwed into the studs.

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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Given the age and condition of the property, the length of the tenancy, and the limited repairs undertaken, no adjustment for betterment and depreciation is made. Claim 5 -Cleaning

The landlord is seeking compensation for cleaning and provided an invoice which included costs for end of tenancy tidy up, garden maintenance, labour cost for loading rubbish, labour cost for loading green waste and costs for rubbish disposal totalling $1750.30.

The landlord accepts that the invoice is unhelpful in that it fails to specify the exact amount charged for cleaning and did not include the number of hours or hourly rate of the contractor.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iii) of the Act.

The landlord provided pre tenancy photographs which proved the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the property to be presented in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord provided post tenancy photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show evidence of dust, ash, cobwebs, dirty light switches, soiled skirting boards, walls that are marked and dirty, some kitchen cupboards have not been emptied or wiped out, the rangehood is grease stained, fly dirt is evident throughout the property, benches have not been wiped down, floors have not been washed or vacuumed, , sinks have not been cleaned, and the toilet is dirty.

The Tribunal can make a proper before and after comparison of the cleanliness of the property. Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the photographs the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to award $500.00 for cleaning costs. Claim 6 – Skip bin hire and rubbish removal costs

The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal and provided three invoices with rubbish removal costs totalling $1843.25. The invoices include $395.00 for skip bin hire, $532.00 for the disposal of 760kg of rubbish, $600 for labour and $316.25 for the disposal of five tyres and 250kg of wood.

At the hearing, the landlord stated that it was appropriate that the amount of compensation sought was reduced to reflect the fact that the fees included the cost of removing items from the property that had been kept in the garage at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord also accepted that the dump fees for the disposal of the 760kg of rubbish should be limited to the cost of hiring a skip bin.

The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property was provided free of rubbish.

The landlord provided post-tenancy photographs which prove the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show significant piles of rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The council rubbish bins are overflowing with waste, there is rubbish and food waste around the exterior of the property, rubbish is piled down the side of the house, there are piles of rubbish in black sacks in the garden shed, there is evidence of rubbish under the deck, broken whiteware has been left behind, children’s toys have been discarded, the garage contains a pile of rubbish in black sacks including tyres and wood. The interior shows that not all the cupboards have been emptied and there is rubbish in the fireplace.

The Tribunal is able to make a proper before and after comparison of the rubbish left behind at the property at the end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish when they returned the property to the landlord.

Having considered all the evidence and after hearing from the landlord the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to awards $1306.25 for rubbish removal. The sum has been adjusted to reflect that some items belonging to the landlord were included in the rubbish removal costs and higher dump fees because an additional skip bin was not hired. Claim 7 - Garden tidying

The landlord seeks compensation for work to the exterior of the property. The landlord states the tenant left the gardens overgrown at the end of the tenancy. The Act requires the tenants to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.

In this case the landlord has provided an invoice for the removal of deadly nightshade, tidying, and weed removal from the garden, weed spraying and pruning totalling $390.00. The cost for loading green waste was included in the contractor’s labour price for rubbish removal.

The Tribunal has considered the pre-tenancy photographs, which show some evidence of weeds in the garden at the commencement of the tenancy, and the post tenancy photographs of the garden. The post tenancy photographs show the garden is overgrown, there is a large pile of weeds in the corner of the property and the area around the garden shed has been used to dump garden waste.

The Tribunal finds that the gardens were not reasonably tidy when returned to the landlord and the tenant is liable for the costs to remedy the situation. Having considered all the evidence and the condition of the garden at the commencement of the tenancy the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to award $300.00. Claim 8 – Interference with the smoke alarm

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed a smoke alarm from the property.

A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) of the Act. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...,” which covers smoke alarms.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The tenant removed a smoke alarm from the property. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.

The landlord states that the smoke alarm was missing from the property and not located. The landlord told the Tribunal that all of the properties they manage have their fire alarms/smoke detectors routinely inspected by an independent contractor and this property was no exception. The landlord said the tenant did not raise any issue with them about the operation (or faulty operation) of the smoke alarm. The Tribunal finds that the tenant intentionally removed the fire alarm from the property and in doing so interfered with the properties means of escape.

The Tribunal awards the landlord $500.00 exemplary damages for the breach. Costs

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280462 — net $2,088.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$229.48	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$225.98	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Repair damage, patch, and paint	$1,200.00	Repairs: Repair damage, patch, and paint
Rubbish removal	$1,306.25	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages - interfering with a means of escape	$500.00	Exemplary damages - interfering with a means of escape
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,088.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,088.71