Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5292639 — Property damage at 6 Wackrow Street, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920
Decided 14 Oct 2025 · Published 14 Oct 2025 · Application 5292639
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Taumarunui
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,565.23
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$1,000.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $565.23
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $297.65 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Cleaning | $300.00 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $475.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Lines call out fee | $96.58 | Lines call out fee | |
| Repairs – lounge window |
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay YLPM Limited as Agent for Dawson Myers Property Trust (Trustee: Victoria Dawson) $565.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (5885806-002) to YLPM Limited as Agent for Dawson Myers Property Trust (Trustee: Victoria Dawson) immediately.
Reasons
- On 23 June 2025, the landlord filed a claim. On 30 July 2025, the matter was set down for an in person hearing at the Taumaranui Courthouse. I was to have travelled from Hamilton to hear the matter. Unfortunately, the road between Te Kuiti and Taumaranui was closed due to flooding. The Registrar contacted both parties to advise that the matter would proceed by telephone, and also confirmed contact phone numbers for both parties.
- The tenant also attended the Taupo Courthouse and delivered a short letter, which has been provided to me. No counterclaim has been made by the tenant. Mr Bergquist, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Attempts to contact the tenant on the confirmed number were unsuccessful, and the matter has proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to return the keys provided at the commencement of the tenancy ($297.65) ii. Is responsible for damage to the front door ($3,628.75), iii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish ($510.00 + $475.00), iv. Damaged the main window in the lounge ($369.00), v. Is responsible for an electricity providers call out fee ($ 96.58), vi. Is responsible for a plumber’s callout to unblock drains ($131.68).
- In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
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, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The property was built in the 1960s and comprises four bedrooms, kitchen, lounge, dining room, bathroom, toilet, laundry, and garage. The tenancy commenced on 11 January 2020 and was initially managed by the landlord. On 28 July 2021, the landlord engaged an agent who managed the property until the end of the tenancy on 22 April 2025. There is no pre tenancy inspection report. The landlord has provided inspection reports, which include photographs from 09 November 2021, 03 February 2022, and the final inspection at the end of the tenancy conducted 28 April 2025.
- On 03 April 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 02 April 2025. The tenant did not leave the property, and the eviction was enforced by the bailiff on 22 April 2025.
- Having considered the end of tenancy report, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish includes household furniture. The invoice for rubbish removal also includes the removal of a blackberry bush in the rear garden which is considered by the local council to be a noxious weed. Mr Bergquist did not conduct the end of tenancy inspection. Based on the photographs taken by another property manager, while I am satisfied that the tenant likely did not have time to complete cleaning, I am not satisfied that an award of the full amount claimed is justified. I award the landlord $300.00 for cleaning. I award the full amount claimed for rubbish removal.
- The landlord claims that the tenant did not return the keys. There is no record of the keys provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Bergquist stated that the front and back door use the same key. There is a lock to the laundry door which is not included in the claim. I am satisfied that, more likely than not, the tenant was provided with a key to the property at the commencement of the tenancy, which has not been returned. I award the amount claimed.
- The landlord claims that during the tenancy the tenant contacted their electricity provider regarding a power outage. The lines company visited the property, discovered, and replaced a burnt-out fuse in the meter box, but found no other issues. The landlord was sent an invoice by the provider, which they have paid. The landlord stated that the lines company and the electricity provider concerned have recently merged and have begun sending their maintenance invoices directly to the account holder, where liability applies. As the account holder, the invoice would have gone to the tenant. The landlord now seeks reimbursement. The landlord notes that in their letter, the tenant refers to a number of appliances being run off the same loop, suggesting that the fuse blew because of overloading caused by the tenant.
- Section 39(3) of the Act, states that tenants are responsible “for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”.
- I am satisfied that the charge has arisen and is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation, and I award reimbursement of the charge out fee. There is no suggestion that the fee has arisen out of any failure on the part of the landlord in meeting their obligations.
- The landlord does not seek to proceed with the claim for the plumbers call out charge, and that part of the claim is dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Window
- The landlord has produced a photograph of the main window in the lounge, which shows series of cracks along the bottom. The window was not shown as damaged in the inspection report dated 09 November 2021. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. The window is non-opening, and I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and likely the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $450.00. The cost of replacing the window is less than the excess and is awarded. Door
- The tenant was evicted by the bailiff at 10am on 22 April 2025, and a notice placed on the door advising that the tenancy had ended, and the tenant was not to re- enter the property. Later that day, Police were called following reports of burglars at the property. The “burglars” turned out to be the tenant and their family, who had returned to collect their possessions. The landlord stated that they had forced entry through the front door, causing damage to the door. The issue in this claim is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, or whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the Police or Disputes Tribunal.
- Under section 49B of the Act, the tenant’s obligations and liability relate to the period when they are in possession under the agreement. In this case, the tenancy had ended, and possession had reverted to the landlord. Although the tenant may well be responsible for the damage, it occurred after they had parted with legal possession, and they are therefore not liable under the Act. However, as stated, their liability may lie elsewhere. Costs
- Because YLPM Limited as Agent for Dawson Myers Property Trust (Trustee: Victoria Dawson) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
- Although they are entitled to name suppression the landlord does not seek it and no orders are made.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s25, s39(3), s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292639 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay YLPM Limited as Agent for Dawson Myers Property
How much money was awarded in case 5292639?
Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lines Call Out Fee: $96.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $297.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $369.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $475.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292639?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292639?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12558423-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.