Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5298402 — Property damage at 17D Burrows Avenue, Parnell, Auckland 1052
Decided 20 January 2026 · Published 20 January 2026 · Application 5298402
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,233.79
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $23.79
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water rates | $128.79 | Water rates | |
| Repairs vinyl: Insurance excess | $500.00 | Repairs vinyl: Insurance excess | |
| Compensation: Loss of calendar | $375.00 | Loss of calendar | |
| Compensation: Bathroom lock | $130.00 | Bathroom lock | |
| Compensation: Nails in stairs | $100.00 | Nails in stairs | |
| Total award | $628.79 | $605.00 | |
| Net award | $23.79 | ||
| Bond | $3,300.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $23.79 |
Claims and awards for application 5298402 — net $23.79 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Water rates
- Amount
- $128.79
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Repairs vinyl: Insurance excess
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs vinyl: Insurance excess
Compensation: Loss of calendar
- Amount
- $375.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Loss of calendar
Compensation: Bathroom lock
- Amount
- $130.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Bathroom lock
Compensation: Nails in stairs
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Nails in stairs
Total award
Landlord $628.79 · Tenant $605.00
Net award
Landlord $23.79
Bond
Landlord $3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $23.79
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Denis Lomtev, Svetlana Lomteva and Svitlana Shcherbyna to pay Hammond & Co Property Limited As Agent For Shelley Moir $23.79 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 (3606741-017) immediately apportioned as follows: Hammond & Co Property Limited As Agent For Shelley Moir: $23.79 Denis Lomtev, Svetlana Lomteva and Svitlana Shcherbyna: $3,276.21
- The landlord’s claims for carpet cleaning and damage to the paint in the entrance way are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Victoria Canning and Verta Sharma. The tenant was represented by Dennis Lomtev and Svetlana Lomteva.
- This was a cross application. The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant applied for damages and compensation.
- The parties agree the tenancy ended following a notice from the tenants on 28 May 2025.
- The parties agree at the end of the tenancy the tenants owed $128.79 for outstanding water rates.
- This amount is proved by consent.
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, 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 (the “RTA”).
- The landlord is claiming $402.50 for carpet cleaning.
- The tenants were allowed to keep a pet cat in the premises. The tenancy agreement included an extra clause that stated at the end of the tenancy, carpet cleaning would be required. The landlord is relying on this clause to claim for the costs of carpet cleaning.
- Where a pet is concerned, the same standard regarding the condition of the premises is required at the end of a tenancy; that is the premises must be returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Extra clauses inserted in tenancy agreements continue to be subject to the RTA.
- The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is supported by a photograph showing a small, faint stain on the carpet in one of the bedrooms.
- The tenants said that at the end of the tenancy they contacted the landlord and got the details of a preferred cleaner who they then employed to clean the premises. They did this in an effort to avoid claims by the landlord regarding the cleanliness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant paid $483.00 for the cleaning.
- The tenants said they were not aware of the stain at the end of the tenancy.
- When I look at the photographs from the landlord and the video from the tenant of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I see a premises that has been returned in excellent condition. Overall, the premises including the carpet is returned well above reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The landlord said because the tenant had kept the cat during the tenancy, there was a likelihood of fleas in the carpet.
- In response to this the tenant said the cat never went outdoors; the cat was exclusively an indoors cat, and therefore he never had fleas.
- The landlord did not raise any evidence of there being fleas in the carpet.
- The claim for carpet cleaning and flea treatment is not 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. Vinyl floor covering
- The landlord is claiming $500.00 as an insurance excess for damage to the vinyl caused during the tenancy.
- The landlord said that in two areas in the kitchen and dining area, there were indent marks in the vinyl caused during the tenancy. The landlord provided three photographs in support of this claim which show indents caused by furniture. The landlord said the indents had broken the surface of the vinyl. The landlord said there are 5 or 6 indents in each of two areas.
- In response, the tenant said they did not accept they caused the damage to the vinyl. The tenant said there were marks in the vinyl particularly in the bathroom, at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The landlord referred me to the entry inspection report. The entry inspection report records a burn mark in the bathroom, but says the vinyl in the kitchen and dining areas is in as new condition.
- Photographs provided by the landlord, although not being determinative due to their lack of quality, appear to show the vinyl in unmarked condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
- I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the vinyl was caused during this tenancy. The tenant has not disproved careless use.
- This claim and the amount ordered are proved. Entrance wall
- The landlord is claiming $400.00 plus GST for damage to paint in the entranceway.
- The landlord said were approximately 14 yellow stain marks on the wall at the end of the tenancy in an area about 1 metre square. These marks did not come off with cleaning.
- The landlord produced photographs which show several small faint marks.
- The tenant said they don't remember making the marks and they consider them to be consistent with fair wear and tear.
- When I look at the photographs, I see small marks. There are no gouges. I agree with the tenant that these are consistent with fair wear and tear.
- This claim is not proved. Tenants’ claims Breach of quiet enjoyment
- The tenants claim the landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- The tenants said on 26th May 2025, two days before the tenancy ended, the tenant permitted the landlord to hold a viewing at the premises. The tenant had moved most of their belongings out of the premises. Included and the few belongings that had still to be removed by the tenant was a calendar that was on the wall. After the viewing the tenant noticed that the calendar had been removed. The tenant contacted the landlord, and the landlord acknowledged that the calendar had been moved by one of the landlord’s agents involved in the viewing.
- The tenant was upset that the calendar had been moved, and couldn’t be found. The landlord was apologetic and as helpful as they could be in trying to locate the calendar. The calendar was not found.
- The calendar was of significance to the tenants. It recorded many significant events of 2025, including significant birthdays, details about holidays, details about visits from friends, and plans and steps in the tenants purchasing their own house. The tenants said the price of the calendar was $10.00, but to them it was extremely valuable and significant.
- I determine that in removing or moving the tenant’s calendar the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord was given permission to enter the property for the purpose of conducting a viewing. This permission did not extend to touching or moving any of the tenants’ belongings.
- The tenant sought $800.00 in exemplary damages for this breach.
- This breach does not amount to harassment and is therefore not an unlawful act. Because this breach is not an unlawful act, exemplary damages are not available to the tenant. Nonetheless, in breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment a possession of significant value belonging to the tenant has been lost.
- I determine the landlord should compensate the tenant by way of general damages for this breach, and I award $350.00 for this. This is to compensate the tenant for their time searching for the calendar and for purchasing another calendar and reconstructing the information that had been recorded in the original item. Failure to maintain
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having consideration to the age and condition of the premises.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenant said the steps leading to the front entrance of the premises were old and had algae growing on them. During wet weather the steps became slippery. In June 2024 while descending the steps, the tenant slipped and fractured his leg.
- The landlord said at the start off the tenancy, and even at the time of the tenant’s accident, the steps were in good condition. The landlord said the steps had become slippery because of the rain.
- There is no information before me that shows the steps were not in a reasonable standard as required by the RTA, or in breach of any building regulations, during this tenancy.
- This claim is not proved. Lock on bathroom door
- The tenant said at the beginning of the tenancy they asked the landlord to put a lock on the bathroom door. The landlord agreed to do this, but despite further requests from the tenant, the landlord never put the lock on the bathroom door.
- The landlord accepted that they had agreed to put the lock on the door at the beginning of the tenancy, and that by the end of the tenancy this still had not occurred. The landlord said they had repeatedly attempted to get a tradie to do the work but they had been unsuccessful.
- I determine that providing a premises in a reasonable state of repair, where a tenant requests and a landlord agrees to providing locks for bathroom doors, includes providing locks on bathroom doors. In not providing a lock for the bathroom door, the landlord has therefore breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
- The tenant is seeking a 1% reduction in rent for the loss of amenity caused by the lack of a lock on the bathroom door.
- I consider a 1% reduction in rent, that is $8.25 per week, an excessive remedy for this small loss of amenity. However I determine the tenants should be compensated. I determine the tenants should be reimbursed $2.00 per week for the entirety of the tenancy which is 65 weeks.
- The claim and amount ordered are proved. Nails in carpet on stairs
- The tenant claims that nails for the carpet protruded through the carpet on the stairs. When the tenants walked on the stairs in bare feet, the nails “bit” at the tenants’ feet. The tenants said they mentioned this to the previous property manager working at the same company on several occasions. They do not have a written record of these complaints.
- The landlord today said she had not received the complaints and she was not aware of the issue.
- Despite the lack of written record, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities there were nails protruding through the carpet on the stairs, and the tenant had made complaints to the landlord about this in an effort to have the situation remedied. Like the issue of the lock on the bathroom door, the nails protruding through the carpet was not remedied during the tenancy.
- I determine this is a breach of section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
- This claim is proved.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) RTA.
- I consider the landlord’s breaches of section 45(1)(b) of the RTA to be minor. It is in the interest of tenants that landlords maintain premises to a high standard. In both of these cases I have found the tenant made repeated overtures to the landlord to bring the premises up to standard. Having considered all of the factors for these claims I considered the amount of $100.00 is sufficient exemplary damages in this case.
- The amount ordered is proved.
- Section 109(2) of the RTA requires claims of exemplary damages to be brought within one year of the claim being discovered. However the tenant continued throughout the tenancy to request the landlord to remedy these problems. In such cases it would be perverse to allow the landlord to escape liability because they had delayed acting on their breaches for over a year. In this case the breach was a continuing act and I determine the one year period to begin after the final notice was given.
- Because both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I let the costs of the filing fees lie where they fall.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(2), s109(3), s38(2), s38(3), s40(1), s40(2), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s55, s65
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5298402?
The tribunal order states: Denis Lomtev, Svetlana Lomteva and Svitlana Shcherbyna to pay Hammond &
How much money was awarded in case 5298402?
Compensation: Bathroom Lock: $130.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Calendar: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Nails In Stairs: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $128.79 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298402?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298402?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12995256-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.