What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284676 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5284676?

Cleaning: $1,171.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $24.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,605.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,083.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284676?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12862813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284676 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5284676?

Cleaning: $1,171.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $24.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,605.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,083.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284676?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12862813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284676 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284676 — net $23,314.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,700.00	Rent arrears
Cost of finding replacement tenants	$552.00	Cost of finding replacement tenants
Cleaning	$1,171.35	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,083.73	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: Outdoor cleaning	$24.99	Cleaning: Outdoor cleaning
Repairs: Carpet Replacement	$4,400.00	Repairs: Carpet Replacement
Repairs: Fence repairs	$1,150.00	Repairs: Fence repairs
Repairs: Interior repairs	$10,605.46	Repairs: Interior repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$23,314.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$23,314.53

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284676 — net $23,314.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,700.00	Rent arrears
Cost of finding replacement tenants	$552.00	Cost of finding replacement tenants
Cleaning	$1,171.35	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,083.73	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: Outdoor cleaning	$24.99	Cleaning: Outdoor cleaning
Repairs: Carpet Replacement	$4,400.00	Repairs: Carpet Replacement
Repairs: Fence repairs	$1,150.00	Repairs: Fence repairs
Repairs: Interior repairs	$10,605.46	Repairs: Interior repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$23,314.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$23,314.53

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

The claim

This tenancy started on 12 December 2022. On 23 May 2024, the Tenant and Landlords entered into a further two-year fixed term agreement, meaning the tenancy was due to end on 23 May 2026. The Tenant then abandoned the premises in July 2025. The Landlords found replacement tenants on 10 August 2025.
The Landlords have now applied to recover unpaid rent of $7,700, the shortfall between the rent the Landlords currently receive and the rent the Tenant would have paid until the end of the fixed term and $34,529.55 for costs incurred following the end of the tenancy, summarised as follows: Rubbish removal and bin hire$1,983.73 Repair of damage to interior of premises$16,169 Fuel, materials and supplies$2,099.86 Costs of finding a new tenant$552 Cleaning costs $500 Carpet replacement$7,330 Garage door repair and remote replacement$559 Pest control$171.35 Gas line leak repair$402.96 Electrical repair$300 Repair stormwater pump and replace heat pump remote $2,802.96 Water blast exterior$100 Administration cost time$500 Dishwasher replacement$411 Paint and cleaning product$647.69
The Tenant paid a bond of $4,400. That bond has already been released to the Landlords, so I must deduct the amount of the bond from any award made to the Landlords.
The Tenant’s position is unknown. She did not attend the hearing or otherwise engage with the Tribunal process. The issues
The issues I must determine in this case are: (a)Are the Landlords entitled to recover rent arrears and the shortfall between the current rent and the rent the Tenant would have paid? (b)Are the Landlords entitled to recover the cost of finding a new Tenant? (c)Did the Tenant leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition? (d)Did the Tenant return all keys or similar devices? (e)Did the Tenant carelessly or deliberately damage the premises? (f)What remedy are the Landlords entitled to? The rent arrears and shortfall
The Landlords have provided their bank account statements, which show the Tenant paid no rent between 23 June and 10 August 2025. That is seven missed weekly payments of $1,100. That evidence satisfies that the Tenant owes $7,700 in rent arrears.
The Landlord also seeks to recover the shortfall between the $1,100 rent the Tenant was paying and the lower rent the replacement tenant is now paying. They are not entitled to recover that amount at this time because that loss has not yet fully crystalised and will not do so until 23 May 2026, when the fixed term was due to expire. The Landlords may bring a further claim at that time if they seek to recover any rent shortfall.

Are the Landlords entitled to recover the cost of finding a replacement tenant?

Earlier this year, the Landlords applied to the Tribunal seeking to terminate the tenancy for abandonment. That application went to mediation.
The Landlords have provided an email from a Tenancy Services mediator. That email states that the mediator had spoken with the Tenant and the Tenant had agreed to grant immediate possession of the premises to the Landlords. I have also seen the Mediator’s order dated 7 July 2025, in which the Mediator notes that the Tenant has agreed that the premises were abandoned and that the parties agreed that possession is granted to the Landlords.
In my view, those facts demonstrate that the tenancy was terminated by the parties by consent for the purposes of section 50(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
Where a tenancy is terminated under section 50(1)(d), the Landlords are entitled to recover from the Tenant any expense incurred in respect of that termination, 1 provided the Landlord first provides an account of those expenses to the Tenant. 2
The Landlords seek to recover the following expenses they paid to myRent to find replacement tenants: (a)$391 – the cost of listing the premises on various websites; and 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(1)). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(2). (b)$161 – the cost of checking the credentials of potential tenants.
The Landlords says that this cost was only incurred due to the early termination of the tenancy. They had expected the tenancy to continue until May 2026.
I find that the Landlords are entitled to recover these cost. A copy of the itemised invoices for these costs have been provided to the Tenant as part of this claim and I am satisfied that the costs are a direct result of the Tenant’s abandonment of the premises and the agreed early termination of the tenancy. Did the Tenant leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition?
At the end of the tenancy, the Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal of all rubbish. 3 She did not. The condition of the interior at the start of the tenancy
The Landlords have provided photographs of the interior of premises taken at the start of the tenancy. Those photographs show that the premises were clean and tidy. The Landlords say they had just renovated the premises before the tenancy. There was new carpet, a new dishwasher and the interior had been repainted. The photographs are consistent with that evidence. The condition of the exterior at the end of the tenancy
The Landlords performed a property inspection on about 8 July 2025. The Landlords have provided photographs of the interior of the premises taken on that day.
Those photographs show that the premises were left unclean and untidy. Almost all walls were marked and damaged, the carpets were stained, dirty and damaged, there was dirt and dust on many surfaces, there were cockroaches in the kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, the kitchen and bathrooms were messy and unclean and the toilet in the main bathroom was badly stained. The Tenant appears to have made no effort to clean and tidy the premises. The rubbish and abandoned belongings
The photographs from the end of the tenancy also show a substantial amount of rubbish and abandoned belongings both inside and outside the premises, including abandoned furniture and electrical equipment, boxes of rotting food (including meat), a pile of sand, broken timber and piles of rubbish.

Did the Tenant return all keys all keys or similar devices?

3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(iii).

The Tenant was required to return to the Landlords all keys, security or pass cards or other such devices provided by the Landlords for the use of the Tenant. 4
The Landlords provided a garage door remote control at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant did not return that remote control at the end of the tenancy.

Did the Tenant carelessly or intentionally damage the premises?

There is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 5 However, a tenant can be liable where: (a)the Landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and (b) the Tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 6
Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 7
As the applicant, the Landlords bear the onus of proving that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. With respect to some of the damage, it has not discharged that.
The Landlords have not proven that some of the damage occurred: (a)The Landlord claims for the cost of replacing 32 lightbulbs. The evidence presented does not show that 32 lightbulbs were missing or damaged. Even if some were, the evidence does not enable me to make any reasonable estimate of the number of bulbs that were missing or damaged. (b)The Landlords claims for the cost of replacing 20 light switches. Again, the evidence does not show that 20 switches were damaged. There is a clear photograph of one damaged switch, but the remaining evidence does not prove further damage to switches.
The Landlords have not proven that the following damage was more than fair wear and tear: (a)The broken shower mixer. I accept that the showed mixer was broken at the end of the tenancy, but it appeared old and the Landlords’ evidence does not prove how it got broken or whether the cause of the break was something more than wear and tear. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(iv). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B 7 Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403 (b)The broken dishwasher. I accept that the dishwasher was new at the start of the tenancy and did not work at the end. However, the Landlords have provided no evidence to prove what caused the dishwasher to stop working. I cannot therefore find that the Tenant was responsible for any damage or fault to the dishwasher, because I cannot reasonably exclude the possibility that the damage or fault may have been due to an inherent defect rather than any act of the Tenant. (c)The faulty oven switch. The Landlord says that the oven switch was damaged and faulty at the end of the tenancy. There was no evidence presented as to the cause of that damage, and neither was the cause self- evident from the photographs provided. I cannot therefore conclude that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. (d)The damaged garage door. The Landlords have proven that the garage door was broken. An invoice from Aaron Garage Doors dated 11 July says that a spring was broken, two rollers were missing and cables required replacement. However, the Landlords have not proven how the spring came to break, or why the rollers were missing and the cables required replacement. The report from Aaron Garage Doors is silent on those points, and I cannot simply assume that if something is broken the Tenant must have caused it. The Landlords did provide a photograph of the outside of the garage door. That photograph does not prove that the Tenants have carelessly or intentionally caused that damage. (e)The damaged stormwater pump. There is a stormwater trap and pump on the premises. The pump was not working at the end of the tenancy. The Landlords say that the Tenant stored a pile of sand near the stormwater drain, and they believe a large amount of that sand washed into the stormwater pump, causing the damage to the pump. I am satisfied that the Landlords have proven that the Tenant stored sand outside the house. I am also satisfied that the stormwater pump had stopped working. That was confirmed in a report from PASLR, which drained water and 300 mm of silt from the stormwater pit and found that the pump’s impeller was blocked with “little stones”. But I am not satisfied that the evidence proves that the pump fault was caused by the Tenant. There was no evidence as to how old the pump was, when the stormwater pit or pump impellers had last been cleaned, or whether the stones found in the impeller were similar to the sand stored by the Tenant. I cannot therefore reasonably disregard the possibility that the stormwater pump fault was caused by something other than the Tenant’s actions or that it was more than fair wear and tear.
The Landlords have, however, proven that there was other significant and intentional damage both inside and outside the premises that was caused by the Tenants during the tenancy that amounted to more than fair wear and tear: (a)The carpet was damaged, including stains and numerous cigarette burn holes, to the extent that it required replacement throughout the house. (b)There were holes in doors and walls. (c)Several door handles were missing or broken on various doors. (d)Almost all walls and many of the ceilings in the house, including the five bedrooms and living areas, were scuffed, chipped. marked or damaged to the extent that they required repair and repainting. (e)The driveway fence was damaged. The fence, which is made of fibre board and lines both sides of the driveway, had several large holes, which were not present at the start of the tenancy. (f)The Tenant damaged a gas line. The Tenant nailed a wooden panel to the garage wall. One of the nails went through the wall, damaging the gas line behind the gib board causing a gas leak. (g)One light switch was badly scratched and gouged. (h)The toilet in the main bathroom was badly stained, probably due to a failure to clean it during the tenancy. The Landlords have provided photographs to show the condition of the toilet before and after the tenancy. I am satisfied that the significant staining occurred during the tenancy and that the only reasonable repair was to replace the toilet. (i)At least two kitchen cupboard doors had been removed or damaged and the benchtop was marked and damaged. The cupboards were intact and the benchtop undamaged at the start of the tenancy.
The photographs presented by the Landlords show that this damage was not caused by one off or accidental events. The damage listed in the paragraph above was all caused by sustained, and in my view, intentional disregard for the Landlords’ premises. I therefore find that the damage listed in the paragraph above was caused by intentional acts.

What remedy are the Landlords entitled to for damage to the premises?

The cost of finding a replacement tenant

The Landlords are entitled to recover the $552 they paid to find replacement tenants. That cost was incurred because of the Tenant’s abandonment of the premises. Cleaning
The Landlords paid $500 to cleaners to clean the house, the carpet and the oven. That is an entirely reasonable amount, and I award that amount to them. I also accept that the Landlords themselves spent many hours cleaning the premises. They claim $500 for their time. That is also a reasonable amount, and I award that amount to them. The Landlords also paid $171.35 to Pastel Pines International Pty Ltd for a cockroach treatment on 1 August 2025. They are entitled to recover that cost.
I therefore order the Tenant must pay $1,171.35 for cleaning costs. Rubbish disposal and outdoor cleaning
The Landlords have provided tax invoices for the cost of disposing the rubbish and belongings. Those tax invoices show that the Landlord disposed of nearly seven tonnes of rubbish. The Landlords are entitled to recover the $1,983.73 cost of that rubbish disposal, specifically: (a)$388.70 for 1.3 tonnes of rubbish on 9 July 2026 (b)$400.92 for 1.39 tonnes of rubbish on 9 July 2025 (c)$308.63 for 1.07 tonnes of rubbish on 19 July 2025 (d)$346.12 for 1.2 tonnes of rubbish on 20 July 2025 (e)$539.36 for 1.87 tonnes of rubbish on 20 July 2025
I also award $100 for the cost of fuel. The Landlords used private trucks for the dumping of the rubbish, and I am satisfied that they incurred at least that amount in fuel costs. The Landlords also say that they paid a friend to help shift the rubbish. They provided no evidence of that expense, so I cannot award it to them.
I therefore award a total of $2,083.73 for the cost of rubbish removal. Outdoor cleaning
The Landlords have also provided an invoice to show that they paid $24.99 for an outdoor cleaner to clean the dirty and stained concrete outside the premises. Those stains were caused by the Tenant cooking and storing goods on the concrete. They are entitled to recover that cost.
The Landlords also seek to recover the cost of water blasting the exterior. They have not proven what part of the exterior required water blasting or why. I therefore decline to award that cost. Garage door remote
The Landlords paid $124 to replace the garage door remote. They are entitled to recover that amount from the Tenant. The carpet replacement
The Landlords paid $7,330 to Micromallnz Ltd to remove and replace the carpet in the five bedrooms and the living area. Although the Tenant has damaged the carpet intentionally, the Landlords are not entitled to recover that entire cost, because any award of damages must account for depreciation and betterment.
The carpet was new in December 2022. It would have depreciated in value since, and I must take that depreciation into account when determining how much the Landlord may recover.
The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) publishes a depreciation rate guide (IR 265). That guide states that the carpet in a residential rental property tenancy has an estimated useful life of 8 years, with a “straight line” depreciation rate of 17.5 per cent a year.
Applying that guidance, and on the basis that there has been a like for like replacement of the carpet, I calculate the depreciated value of the carpet and the time it was replaced to be about $4,400. That is the amount that I award to the Landlord. Although they paid $7,330 to replace the carpet, they were replacing an item that had depreciated in value. Any award of more than $4,400 would result in betterment. The exterior damage
The Landlords paid $1,150 to Property Maintenance and Septic Services to repair the damaged driveway fence. They are entitled to recover that amount from the Tenant. The other interior repairs
The Landlords are entitled to recover the following costs they paid to Property Maintenance and Septic Services to repair damage to the interior: (a)$6000 – for the cost of repainting the interior, including the walls, ceilings, doors, door frames and for all gib repairs, plastering, sanding, and painting. The actual cost to the Landlords was $8000 plus GST, but I reduce the amount I award to them to reflect the betterment they will receive by now having a freshly repaired and painted house. (b)$2,000 – for the cost of repairs to kitchen cupboards and damaged benchtop. The actual cost of these repairs was higher - $4,025. However, I reduce the amount awarded to reflect the old age and already worn state of the damaged kitchen cupboards and doors and the benchtop and to reflect the betterment the Landlords have received by these repairs. (c)$300 – for the cost of replacing the damaged toilet. Again, the actual cost was $650, which is higher than the amount I have ordered. However, I again reduce the amount awarded to reflect the age of the toilet and the betterment the Landlords have received by having a new toilet installed. (d)$402.50 – the cost of replacing two damaged doors and the damaged door locks.
The Landlords are entitled to recover the $402.96 they paid to Everything Plumbing Ltd to repair the damaged gas line.
The Landlords also seek to recover the cost they incurred in purchasing items they used to repair the damage to the premises. The Landlords have provided a large number of tax invoices for items they have purchased, totalling more than $2,500.
The Landlords have not provided any itemised list of what repairs each of the items purchased related to. Some of the invoices clearly relate to the purchase of light switches, light bulbs and a shower mixer. The Landlord cannot recover those amounts because, as set out above, the Landlords have not proven that the Tenant is not liable. But the remaining invoices do largely appear to relate to the repairs required to remedy damage that the Tenant is liable for. But given the large number of invoices and line items within each invoice, I have found it difficult to reconcile each cost against a specific repair.
Consequently, I will not try to do that reconciliation in this decision. Instead, having looked at those invoices in the round, I order that the Tenant must pay $1,500 towards the costs incurred by the Landlords, including the cost of one light switch, paint, painting implements and preparation materials, cleaning products and building materials used to repair the driveway fence. That seems a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of purchasing items required to perform the repairs.
I therefore order that the Tenant must pay a total of $10,605.46 for the interior repairs discussed in paragraphs [43] to [47].
For the reasons set out above, the Landlords are not entitled to recover the other amounts they seek, as those amounts related to repairs that the Tenant is not liable for. Name suppression and filing fee
The Landlords seek name suppression and to recover the filing fee. They have been largely successful in their claim, so they are entitled to both.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284676 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284676 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the Landlords entitled to recover the cost of finding a replacement tenant?

Did the Tenant return all keys all keys or similar devices?

Did the Tenant carelessly or intentionally damage the premises?

What remedy are the Landlords entitled to for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the Landlords entitled to recover the cost of finding a replacement tenant?

Did the Tenant return all keys all keys or similar devices?

Did the Tenant carelessly or intentionally damage the premises?

What remedy are the Landlords entitled to for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions