How much money was awarded in case 5288923?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $164.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $232.97 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,105.71 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Floor Coverings: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288923?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12793286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5288923?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $164.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $232.97 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,105.71 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Floor Coverings: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288923?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12793286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35 Nixon Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288923 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288923 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288923 — net $3,499.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 May 2025	$1,105.71	Rent arrears to 31 May 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: floor coverings	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: floor coverings
Window repairs	$164.10	Window repairs
Window repairs	$232.97	Window repairs
Repairs: walls	$1,950.00	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,499.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,499.78

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

Bonnie Rapana and Rangikitehau Devon must pay [The landlord/s] $3,499.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 31 May 2025$1,105.71 Carpet Cleaning$250.00 Cleaning$690.00 Replace furnishings: floor coverings$1,000.00 Window repairs$164.10 Window repairs$232.97 Repairs: walls$1,950.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$5,419.78 Bond$1,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,499.78

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

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 tenancy ended on 31 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The evidence shows that the carpets were stained. It was appropriate for the landlord to have them professionally cleaned in an attempt to remove the stains, even though it was unsuccessful.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

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) RTA.

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) RTA. 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) RTA.

The landlord’s excess was $650.00.

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) RTA.

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 photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpets were extensively damaged throughout the house by staining or the pile being damaged. b. The vinyl in the kitchen was torn and could not be repaired. c. The tenant had broken two windows during the tenancy and the invoices had not been paid. d. There was scribble on two walls in the lunge which could not be removed. e. In the hallway there was a hole behind the door and multiple ears in the wallpaper. f. In bedroom 2 there was a punch hole in the wall.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord explained that, apart from the two windows broken during the tenancy, the repairs had not been completed. The landlord gave evidence that the property was sold privately with a reduction in the agreed price by deducting the net amount the owner received in insurance to reflect the reduced value of the property being sold “as is”.

The Tribunal accepts that the landlord has suffered a diminution in value because of the damage caused by the tenant. However, the loss is limited to the amount by which the sale price was reduced.

The landlord could not provide evidence of the age of the carpets and vinyl but believes that they were at least eight years old. This means that their depreciation value was nil. However, the carpets retained a utility value and the landlord would not have had to replace them, but for the actions of the tenant. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to award the landlord a sum reflecting that residual value.

The landlord submitted quotations for works which were not completed for the repair of laundry and dining room walls, toilet basis replacement, electrical works, glass broken in the lounge door and curtain replacement.

The landlord has given evidence that by deducting the insurance payout from the agreed sale price it has suffered loss for the damage to the walls. It is appropriate to award the three insurance excesses for these repairs which was deducted from the sale price.

However, there is no evidence that the landlord suffered loss in relation to the uncompleted works. No money was paid for their repair and no money was deducted from the sale price to reflect any reduction in value. These claims are therefore dismissed.

As all the amounts are the insurance excess or less, it is not necessary to consider how much of the damage was intentional or careless.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288923 — net $3,499.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 May 2025	$1,105.71	Rent arrears to 31 May 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: floor coverings	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: floor coverings
Window repairs	$164.10	Window repairs
Window repairs	$232.97	Window repairs
Repairs: walls	$1,950.00	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,499.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,499.78

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Bonnie Rapana and Rangikitehau Devon must pay [The landlord/s] $3,499.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 31 May 2025$1,105.71 Carpet Cleaning$250.00 Cleaning$690.00 Replace furnishings: floor coverings$1,000.00 Window repairs$164.10 Window repairs$232.97 Repairs: walls$1,950.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$5,419.78 Bond$1,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,499.78

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
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 tenancy ended on 31 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The evidence shows that the carpets were stained. It was appropriate for the landlord to have them professionally cleaned in an attempt to remove the stains, even though it was unsuccessful.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
The landlord’s excess was $650.00.
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) RTA.
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 photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpets were extensively damaged throughout the house by staining or the pile being damaged. b. The vinyl in the kitchen was torn and could not be repaired. c. The tenant had broken two windows during the tenancy and the invoices had not been paid. d. There was scribble on two walls in the lunge which could not be removed. e. In the hallway there was a hole behind the door and multiple ears in the wallpaper. f. In bedroom 2 there was a punch hole in the wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord explained that, apart from the two windows broken during the tenancy, the repairs had not been completed. The landlord gave evidence that the property was sold privately with a reduction in the agreed price by deducting the net amount the owner received in insurance to reflect the reduced value of the property being sold “as is”.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord has suffered a diminution in value because of the damage caused by the tenant. However, the loss is limited to the amount by which the sale price was reduced.
The landlord could not provide evidence of the age of the carpets and vinyl but believes that they were at least eight years old. This means that their depreciation value was nil. However, the carpets retained a utility value and the landlord would not have had to replace them, but for the actions of the tenant. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to award the landlord a sum reflecting that residual value.
The landlord submitted quotations for works which were not completed for the repair of laundry and dining room walls, toilet basis replacement, electrical works, glass broken in the lounge door and curtain replacement.
The landlord has given evidence that by deducting the insurance payout from the agreed sale price it has suffered loss for the damage to the walls. It is appropriate to award the three insurance excesses for these repairs which was deducted from the sale price.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord suffered loss in relation to the uncompleted works. No money was paid for their repair and no money was deducted from the sale price to reflect any reduction in value. These claims are therefore dismissed.
As all the amounts are the insurance excess or less, it is not necessary to consider how much of the damage was intentional or careless.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288923 — Property damage at 35 Nixon Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288923 — Property damage at 35 Nixon Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their 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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their 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

Frequently asked questions