What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299259 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,441.19 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5299259?

Cleaning: $423.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $211.76 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Internet Charges: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $260.72 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Broken Heat Lamp: $11.64 awarded to landlord; Broken Shower Hose: $36.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; To Door And Wall: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,613.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $1,072.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $168.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $46.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299259?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12677241-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299259 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,441.19 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5299259?

Cleaning: $423.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $211.76 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Internet Charges: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $260.72 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Broken Heat Lamp: $11.64 awarded to landlord; Broken Shower Hose: $36.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; To Door And Wall: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,613.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $1,072.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $168.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $46.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299259?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12677241-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

88A Paremoremo Road, Lucas Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299259 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299259 — net $3,441.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2025	$428.57	Rent arrears to 19 June 2025
Internet charges	$80.00	Internet charges
Cleaning	$211.76	Cleaning
Lawns	$25.00	Lawns
Rubbish removal	$168.00	Rubbish removal
Replace smoke alarms	$46.38	Replace smoke alarms
Light bulbs/batteries	$260.72	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: broken heat lamp	$11.64	Repairs: broken heat lamp
Repairs: broken shower hose	$36.74	Repairs: broken shower hose
Repairs: damage LPG gas connection	$80.30	Repairs: damage LPG gas connection
Repairs: to door and wall	$1,725.00	Repairs: to door and wall
Repairs: damage to cabinet	$230.00	Repairs: damage to cabinet
Carpet Cleaning	$423.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace carpet	$1,613.58	Replace carpet
Replace curtains	$1,072.50	Replace curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,441.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,441.19

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,441.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6517086-002) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The lanldord’s claims for exemplary damages and the wasterwater inspection fee are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
On 30 October 2025, the tenant requested that the hearing be adjourned to a later day because she needed additional time to prepare for the hearing. This claim was initially lodged on 02 July 2025. A hearing scheduled for 20 October 2025 was adjourned due to Adjudicator illness. I consider that the tenant has had sufficient time to prepare and her request for an adjournment was declined.
There has not been any further correspondence from the tenant as to why she would not attend today’s hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided text messages showing that the tenant agreed to pay $40 per month towards the Wi-Fi costs and a ledger showing these payments were not made.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to comply with the following obligations:
Failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: a. The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the bathroom and the stovetop were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided photographs showing that there was broken glass left on the lawn. b. The landlord is claiming $276.00 (including GST) being 4 hours cleaning at $60 per hour plus GST. The landlord has provided an invoice to support this claim. The landlord said that the cleaner cleaned the inside of the premises and picked the broken glass off the lawn. The invoice provided states that the work was “house one off cleaning”, it does not provide a breakdown. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the cleaner did pick the broken glass out of the garden and estimate that this would have taken around 1.5 hours. I believe that the cleaning work of the stove top and the bathroom would have taken approximately 1.5 hours. The landlord says other areas of the house required cleaning, but I have not been provided with photographs of the other areas. c. I award $211.76 (including GST) being 3 hours’ time spent by the cleaner at $60.00 per hour for this claim. d. The landlord is claiming $50.00 for mowing of the lawns. The landlord says that the lawn was overgrown and has provided photographs supporting this claim. e. The landlord said that his son mowed the lawn, and he paid him $50 for this work. The landlord has provided a bank transfer to prove that this payment was made. The landlord said it took his son approximately half an hour to mow the lawn. As it was a family member who mowed the lawn, I consider this sum to be excessive. I award $25.00 for this claim.
Failed to remove rubbish: a. The landlord said that the tenant left a large bin filled with rubbish at the premises. The landlord is claiming $168.00 (including GST) to remove this bin. The landlord has provided a photograph showing that a bin was left at the premises and an invoice for the work to remove this bin. b. This claim is proved, and I award $168.00 (including GST) for this claim.
Missing chattels – smoke alarm: a. The landlord is claiming $46.38 to replace the smoke alarm that the landlord said was missing at the end of the tenancy. b. The landlord has provided photograph showing the smoke alarm was missing and an invoice showing that it has been replaced. c. This claim is proved, and I award $46.38 (including GST) for this claim.
Missing light bulbs: a. The landlord is claiming $260.72 to replace 11 missing light bulbs that the landlord said were missing at the end of the tenancy. b. The landlord has provided photographs showing the light bulbs were missing and an invoice showing that they have been replaced. c. This claim is proved, and I award $260.72 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Broken heat lamp in the shower: a. The landlord is claiming $11.64 to repair this damage and has provided a photograph showing the damage and an invoice showing the repair has been done to support this claim. The landlord has also provided a pre tenancy report signed by the tenant which records that there was no damage to the premises at the start of the tenancy. b. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. c. I award $11.64 (including GST) for this claim.
Broken shower hose: a. The landlord is claiming $36.74 to repair this damage and has provided a photograph showing the damage and an invoice showing the hose has been replaced to support this claim. I note that there is no damage to the bathroom recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report. b. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. c. I award $36.74 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the LPG gas connection: a. The landlord is claiming $80.30 to repair this damage and has provided a photograph showing the damage and an invoice showing the hose has been replaced to support this claim. b. The tenancy agreement provides that a 45kg gas bottle is to be used. The landlord provided a photograph showing that the tenant used a smaller bottle. The landlord said that the damage was due to a smaller bottle being used which meant that the wind blew the connection and damaged it. I consider that it is more likely than not that this is what caused the damage. c. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. d. I award $80.30 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the wall in the bedroom and the door: a. The landlord is claiming $1,725.00 to repair this damage and has provided photographs showing the damage and an invoice for the repairs. This damage was not recorded in the inspection report from the start of the tenancy. b. The landlord said that he tried to remove the drawing on the wall and that the cleaners did too. The landlord said it could not be removed and it was necessary to pain the wall and the door. c. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. The tenant has also not proved that that the damage was not intentional. Therefore, the limit on the damage is 4 weeks’ rent ($3,000) and not the insurance excess of $550.00. d. I award $1,725.00 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the cabinet: a. The landlord is claiming $36.74 to repair this damage and has provided photographs showing the damage and an invoice for the repairs. This damage is not recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report. b. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. c. I award $36.74 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the carpets due to animal urine: a. The landlord is claiming $552.00 to clean the carpets and $2,185.00 to replace the carpet and the underlay. The landlord has provided invoices to support these claims. b. The landlord has provided photographs showing several stains on the carpet. This damage was not recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report. c. The landlord said when he first entered the premises after the tenant moved out, there was a very strong smell of perfume. A bottle of spray was found at the premises. d. Due to the perfume smell, the landlord did not notice the extent of the smell of animal urine coming from the carpets. The landlord had the carpets cleaned to remove the stains. The invoice was for $552.00. However, $129 of that invoice was for pest control. e. The landlord said that when he returned to the premises a few days after they had been cleaned, the smell of animal urine was very strong. He said the urine had soaked into the underlay and the carpets had to be replaced. f. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. The tenant has also not proved that this damage was not intentional. Therefore, the limit is 4 weeks’ rent and not the insurance excess of $550.00. g. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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. h. The landlord says that the carpet was new as at 20 September 2023. Therefore, on the date the tenant vacated the premises, the carpet was approximately 1 year and 9 months old. The Inland Revenue’s guidance, General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024, 1 provides that carpet in residential rental properties has a life span of 8 years. i. I award $2,165.58 (including GST) for this claim being $423.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the carpet and $1,613.58 (including GST) to replace the carpet.
Damage to the curtains: a. The landlord says that the curtains were damaged during the tenancy and is claiming $1,300.00 to replace the curtains. b. The landlord says the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not provided any invoices to support this. However, he has provided photographs of the curtains which show they were in a new condition. c. The landlord said that the curtains were damaged with cat scratches, however, the main issue was the smell of animal urine. The landlord said he washed the curtains in the washing machine but the smell remained. d. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. The tenant has also not proved that the damage to the curtains was not intentional. Therefore, the limit of 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz › ir265-august-2024. the tenant’s liability is 4 weeks’ rent ($3,000) and not the insurance excess of $550.00. e. The tenancy was for a period of one year. As set out at paragraph XYZ above, I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The guidance from Inland Revenue 2 provides that curtains in a rental property have a useful lifespan of 8 years. Taking depreciation into account, I award $1,072.50 for this claim.

Is the tenant liable for the Reflection Wastewater service fee?

The tenancy agreement provides that every 6 months a maintenance inspection will be performed on the Reflection Wastewater Treatment System and the tenant is responsible for 50% of the inspection fee.
The landlord said that the inspection must be carried out whether or not the premises is occupied.
Section 39(1) of the RTA provides that the landlord is responsible for outgoings that “... (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied”.
As the inspection would be carried out whether or not the premises are occupied, the clause referred to above conflicts with section 39(1) of the RTA.
It is not possible for tenants to waive their rights under the RTA. Section 11 of the RTA provides that a landlord cannot enforce any provision in the tenancy agreement which is inconsistent with the RTA unless approved by the Tribunal. Furthermore, a tenant cannot by law waive any rights they have available under the RTA, meaning a clause in a tenancy agreement which limits a right, cannot be waived by the tenant.
I find that this clause is unenforceable.
The claim for the service fee is dismissed. Claim for exemplary damages:
Exemplary damages can be awarded for specific breaches of the RTA which are deemed to be unlawful acts. (See section 109 and Schedule 1a of the RTA.). The landlord has claimed exemplary damages. However, none of the breaches of the RTA claimed by the landlord are unlawful acts under the RTA.
This claim is dismissed. 2 Ibid. Filing fee:
[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299259 — net $3,441.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2025	$428.57	Rent arrears to 19 June 2025
Internet charges	$80.00	Internet charges
Cleaning	$211.76	Cleaning
Lawns	$25.00	Lawns
Rubbish removal	$168.00	Rubbish removal
Replace smoke alarms	$46.38	Replace smoke alarms
Light bulbs/batteries	$260.72	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: broken heat lamp	$11.64	Repairs: broken heat lamp
Repairs: broken shower hose	$36.74	Repairs: broken shower hose
Repairs: damage LPG gas connection	$80.30	Repairs: damage LPG gas connection
Repairs: to door and wall	$1,725.00	Repairs: to door and wall
Repairs: damage to cabinet	$230.00	Repairs: damage to cabinet
Carpet Cleaning	$423.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace carpet	$1,613.58	Replace carpet
Replace curtains	$1,072.50	Replace curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,441.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,441.19

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,441.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6517086-002) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The lanldord’s claims for exemplary damages and the wasterwater inspection fee are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
On 30 October 2025, the tenant requested that the hearing be adjourned to a later day because she needed additional time to prepare for the hearing. This claim was initially lodged on 02 July 2025. A hearing scheduled for 20 October 2025 was adjourned due to Adjudicator illness. I consider that the tenant has had sufficient time to prepare and her request for an adjournment was declined.
There has not been any further correspondence from the tenant as to why she would not attend today’s hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided text messages showing that the tenant agreed to pay $40 per month towards the Wi-Fi costs and a ledger showing these payments were not made.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to comply with the following obligations:
Failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: a. The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided photographs showing that the bathroom and the stovetop were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided photographs showing that there was broken glass left on the lawn. b. The landlord is claiming $276.00 (including GST) being 4 hours cleaning at $60 per hour plus GST. The landlord has provided an invoice to support this claim. The landlord said that the cleaner cleaned the inside of the premises and picked the broken glass off the lawn. The invoice provided states that the work was “house one off cleaning”, it does not provide a breakdown. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the cleaner did pick the broken glass out of the garden and estimate that this would have taken around 1.5 hours. I believe that the cleaning work of the stove top and the bathroom would have taken approximately 1.5 hours. The landlord says other areas of the house required cleaning, but I have not been provided with photographs of the other areas. c. I award $211.76 (including GST) being 3 hours’ time spent by the cleaner at $60.00 per hour for this claim. d. The landlord is claiming $50.00 for mowing of the lawns. The landlord says that the lawn was overgrown and has provided photographs supporting this claim. e. The landlord said that his son mowed the lawn, and he paid him $50 for this work. The landlord has provided a bank transfer to prove that this payment was made. The landlord said it took his son approximately half an hour to mow the lawn. As it was a family member who mowed the lawn, I consider this sum to be excessive. I award $25.00 for this claim.
Failed to remove rubbish: a. The landlord said that the tenant left a large bin filled with rubbish at the premises. The landlord is claiming $168.00 (including GST) to remove this bin. The landlord has provided a photograph showing that a bin was left at the premises and an invoice for the work to remove this bin. b. This claim is proved, and I award $168.00 (including GST) for this claim.
Missing chattels – smoke alarm: a. The landlord is claiming $46.38 to replace the smoke alarm that the landlord said was missing at the end of the tenancy. b. The landlord has provided photograph showing the smoke alarm was missing and an invoice showing that it has been replaced. c. This claim is proved, and I award $46.38 (including GST) for this claim.
Missing light bulbs: a. The landlord is claiming $260.72 to replace 11 missing light bulbs that the landlord said were missing at the end of the tenancy. b. The landlord has provided photographs showing the light bulbs were missing and an invoice showing that they have been replaced. c. This claim is proved, and I award $260.72 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Broken heat lamp in the shower: a. The landlord is claiming $11.64 to repair this damage and has provided a photograph showing the damage and an invoice showing the repair has been done to support this claim. The landlord has also provided a pre tenancy report signed by the tenant which records that there was no damage to the premises at the start of the tenancy. b. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. c. I award $11.64 (including GST) for this claim.
Broken shower hose: a. The landlord is claiming $36.74 to repair this damage and has provided a photograph showing the damage and an invoice showing the hose has been replaced to support this claim. I note that there is no damage to the bathroom recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report. b. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. c. I award $36.74 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the LPG gas connection: a. The landlord is claiming $80.30 to repair this damage and has provided a photograph showing the damage and an invoice showing the hose has been replaced to support this claim. b. The tenancy agreement provides that a 45kg gas bottle is to be used. The landlord provided a photograph showing that the tenant used a smaller bottle. The landlord said that the damage was due to a smaller bottle being used which meant that the wind blew the connection and damaged it. I consider that it is more likely than not that this is what caused the damage. c. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. d. I award $80.30 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the wall in the bedroom and the door: a. The landlord is claiming $1,725.00 to repair this damage and has provided photographs showing the damage and an invoice for the repairs. This damage was not recorded in the inspection report from the start of the tenancy. b. The landlord said that he tried to remove the drawing on the wall and that the cleaners did too. The landlord said it could not be removed and it was necessary to pain the wall and the door. c. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. The tenant has also not proved that that the damage was not intentional. Therefore, the limit on the damage is 4 weeks’ rent ($3,000) and not the insurance excess of $550.00. d. I award $1,725.00 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the cabinet: a. The landlord is claiming $36.74 to repair this damage and has provided photographs showing the damage and an invoice for the repairs. This damage is not recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report. b. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. c. I award $36.74 (including GST) for this claim.
Damage to the carpets due to animal urine: a. The landlord is claiming $552.00 to clean the carpets and $2,185.00 to replace the carpet and the underlay. The landlord has provided invoices to support these claims. b. The landlord has provided photographs showing several stains on the carpet. This damage was not recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report. c. The landlord said when he first entered the premises after the tenant moved out, there was a very strong smell of perfume. A bottle of spray was found at the premises. d. Due to the perfume smell, the landlord did not notice the extent of the smell of animal urine coming from the carpets. The landlord had the carpets cleaned to remove the stains. The invoice was for $552.00. However, $129 of that invoice was for pest control. e. The landlord said that when he returned to the premises a few days after they had been cleaned, the smell of animal urine was very strong. He said the urine had soaked into the underlay and the carpets had to be replaced. f. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. The tenant has also not proved that this damage was not intentional. Therefore, the limit is 4 weeks’ rent and not the insurance excess of $550.00. g. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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. h. The landlord says that the carpet was new as at 20 September 2023. Therefore, on the date the tenant vacated the premises, the carpet was approximately 1 year and 9 months old. The Inland Revenue’s guidance, General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024, 1 provides that carpet in residential rental properties has a life span of 8 years. i. I award $2,165.58 (including GST) for this claim being $423.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the carpet and $1,613.58 (including GST) to replace the carpet.
Damage to the curtains: a. The landlord says that the curtains were damaged during the tenancy and is claiming $1,300.00 to replace the curtains. b. The landlord says the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not provided any invoices to support this. However, he has provided photographs of the curtains which show they were in a new condition. c. The landlord said that the curtains were damaged with cat scratches, however, the main issue was the smell of animal urine. The landlord said he washed the curtains in the washing machine but the smell remained. d. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved liability for this damage. The tenant has also not proved that the damage to the curtains was not intentional. Therefore, the limit of 1 https://www.ird.govt.nz › ir265-august-2024. the tenant’s liability is 4 weeks’ rent ($3,000) and not the insurance excess of $550.00. e. The tenancy was for a period of one year. As set out at paragraph XYZ above, I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The guidance from Inland Revenue 2 provides that curtains in a rental property have a useful lifespan of 8 years. Taking depreciation into account, I award $1,072.50 for this claim.

Is the tenant liable for the Reflection Wastewater service fee?

The tenancy agreement provides that every 6 months a maintenance inspection will be performed on the Reflection Wastewater Treatment System and the tenant is responsible for 50% of the inspection fee.
The landlord said that the inspection must be carried out whether or not the premises is occupied.
Section 39(1) of the RTA provides that the landlord is responsible for outgoings that “... (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied”.
As the inspection would be carried out whether or not the premises are occupied, the clause referred to above conflicts with section 39(1) of the RTA.
It is not possible for tenants to waive their rights under the RTA. Section 11 of the RTA provides that a landlord cannot enforce any provision in the tenancy agreement which is inconsistent with the RTA unless approved by the Tribunal. Furthermore, a tenant cannot by law waive any rights they have available under the RTA, meaning a clause in a tenancy agreement which limits a right, cannot be waived by the tenant.
I find that this clause is unenforceable.
The claim for the service fee is dismissed. Claim for exemplary damages:
Exemplary damages can be awarded for specific breaches of the RTA which are deemed to be unlawful acts. (See section 109 and Schedule 1a of the RTA.). The landlord has claimed exemplary damages. However, none of the breaches of the RTA claimed by the landlord are unlawful acts under the RTA.
This claim is dismissed. 2 Ibid. Filing fee:
[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299259 — Property damage at 88A Paremoremo Road, Lucas Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299259 — Property damage at 88A Paremoremo Road, Lucas Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the Reflection Wastewater service fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the Reflection Wastewater service fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions