What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299801 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay

How much money was awarded in case 5299801?

Cleaning: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $78.71 awarded to landlord; Lawn: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Windowsill: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299801?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12335704-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299801 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay

How much money was awarded in case 5299801?

Cleaning: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $78.71 awarded to landlord; Lawn: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Windowsill: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299801?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12335704-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Liverpool Street, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299801 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299801 — net $418.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$78.71	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$189.75	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: lawn	$60.00	Repairs: lawn
Repairs: paint windowsill	$90.00	Repairs: paint windowsill
Net award	$418.46
Bond	$2,220.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$418.46

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Misena Yam $418.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,220.00 (5415346-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Misena Yam: $418.46 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,801.54 DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$78.71 Carpet Cleaning$189.75 Repairs: lawn$60.00 Repairs: paint windowsill$90.00 Total award$418.46 Bond$418.46$1,801.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented at the hearing by her property manager. In this order, the owner and the property manager are referred to separately. Both are jointly and severally responsible as the landlord under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation for the property manager issuing a termination notice without grounds.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
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 and video evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There was a stain on the carpet in the lounge. The tenant accepted liability. b. There was damage to the lawn where an above-ground pool was situated and where cars had driven over the grass. The tenant accepted liability for the area of lawn damaged by the pool. The landlord provided video evidence that the area at the front of the house was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. c. There was damage caused by hair dye to the windowsill in the bathroom. The tenant accepted liability.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the Tribunal is persuaded on the video and photographic evidence provided by the landlord that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The damage was careless. The landlord’s invoice for the lawn repair and windowsill painting does not itemise the charges for specific tasks carried out. The Tribunal has therefore awarded amounts that are consistent with invoices for similar work which the Tribunal sees on a regular basis in this area.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The invoice included a charge for the replacement of curtains, curtain railing and runners and a net curtain. The tenant explained that these were removed by the landlord at the start of the tenancy and the tenant had supplied their own curtains. The property manager had no knowledge of this and supplied an email from the owner instructing her to claim the cost of the replacement curtains.
The landlord was telephoned and confirmed that the items were removed before the start of the tenancy and that the tenant was not responsible for their replacement. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claim
The property manager issued a 90-day termination notice on 18 February 2025 under section 51(1) RTA. The tenant gave evidence of the significant distress and disruption that this caused the tenant and their family, requiring them to find new accommodation, to take time off work, clean the property and shift their household. The tenant was also upset that the tenancy had come to an end without any reason being given.
The tenant claimed that the property manager gave the notice without instruction from the owner and that the property manager was therefore liable to compensate the tenant for the stress and inconvenience.
The tenant advised that they were negotiating with the owner to rent the property once again.
The property manager gave evidence that the owner had given her instructions to issue the 90-day notice because she wanted to sell the property and that if she did not sell it, the owner would move back in. She advised that the property remained on the market with another real estate firm.
The tenant was able to telephone the owner during the hearing to give further evidence. The owner clearly stated and re-stated that she did not give the property manager instructions to terminate the tenancy. She stated that the property manager had told her that the tenants were “bad tenants” and it was the property manager’s suggestion to terminate the tenancy.
The property manager gave evidence as follows: a. The tenants were good tenants throughout the tenancy and she did not advise the owner to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. b. The landlord gave her clear instructions by telephone to terminate the tenancy because she wanted to sell the property or move back into it. c. She provided a copy of an email from the owner to the property manager dated 11 April 2025 which states: “I wish to put my property at 43 Liverpool Street levin on the market for sale at the current tenancy ended. Please advise the procedure in order to do so at your earliest convenience.” d. The property manager arranged for a sale appraisal to be completed by a real estate agent which the tenant confirmed had been done. e. A text message from the property manager to the tenant on 19 May 2025 confirms that the keys at the end of the tenancy were to be returned to another real estate firm, being the one which the property manager advised had listed the property for sale. f. On 6 June 2025 the owner emailed the property manager: “Thank you for the Heathy Home Assessment report. Please stop to get quotes from different agencies to make my property at 43 Liverpool Street Levin compliance to outstanding issues. I wish to live in my property. It is a beautiful house with double grazing windows throughout the whole house + all day sun. I believed, once the current tenants moved out on the 20/05/25, the contract between landlord and property manager will be ceased also on the same date. Therefore I wanted you to return my house keys please.”
The landlord’s evidence that she never instructed the property manager to terminate the tenancy is inconsistent with her emails. The owner’s emails confirm the property manager’s evidence regarding the owner’s reasons for terminating the tenancy. There is nothing in the emails to suggest that the owner objected to the notice having been given. The property manager’s text message to the tenant requiring them to deliver the keys to another real estate firm confirms that the property has been listed for sale.
The Tribunal has noted that the owner instructed the property manager to claim compensation for the missing curtains in an email dated 11 June 2025, yet gave clear evidence by telephone at the hearing that she had removed these herself at the start of the tenancy and that she was not seeking compensation from the tenant. The landlord’s verbal evidence contradicted the clear instruction given in her email to the property manager. Similarly, the landlord’s verbal evidence in relation to the termination notice contradicts her email statements. Given such inconsistency, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the very experienced property manager which was consistent and was supported by contemporaneous email and text evidence. The Tribunal therefore accepts that the property manager did not terminate the tenancy without the instructions of the owner.
While the Tribunal can sympathise with the stress and uncertainty that the tenant and their family have had to endure, it is not persuaded on the evidence before it and on the balance of probabilities that the notice to terminate was issued without instruction from the landlord. The tenant’s claim must therefore be dismissed.
As observed during the hearing, the Tribunal does not have authority to investigate how or why a formally valid termination notice was issued under section 52(1) RTA, unless there has been an application under section 54 RTA to declare a notice retaliatory. No such claim was made in this case. The issue of whether a termination notice was issued with the owner’s authority is an issue between owner and property manager, not property manager and tenant.
As neither party has substantially succeeded in their application, no order is made regarding name suppression or reimbursement of the filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299801 — net $418.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$78.71	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$189.75	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: lawn	$60.00	Repairs: lawn
Repairs: paint windowsill	$90.00	Repairs: paint windowsill
Net award	$418.46
Bond	$2,220.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$418.46

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Misena Yam $418.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,220.00 (5415346-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Misena Yam: $418.46 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,801.54 DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$78.71 Carpet Cleaning$189.75 Repairs: lawn$60.00 Repairs: paint windowsill$90.00 Total award$418.46 Bond$418.46$1,801.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented at the hearing by her property manager. In this order, the owner and the property manager are referred to separately. Both are jointly and severally responsible as the landlord under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation for the property manager issuing a termination notice without grounds.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
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 and video evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There was a stain on the carpet in the lounge. The tenant accepted liability. b. There was damage to the lawn where an above-ground pool was situated and where cars had driven over the grass. The tenant accepted liability for the area of lawn damaged by the pool. The landlord provided video evidence that the area at the front of the house was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. c. There was damage caused by hair dye to the windowsill in the bathroom. The tenant accepted liability.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the Tribunal is persuaded on the video and photographic evidence provided by the landlord that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The damage was careless. The landlord’s invoice for the lawn repair and windowsill painting does not itemise the charges for specific tasks carried out. The Tribunal has therefore awarded amounts that are consistent with invoices for similar work which the Tribunal sees on a regular basis in this area.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The invoice included a charge for the replacement of curtains, curtain railing and runners and a net curtain. The tenant explained that these were removed by the landlord at the start of the tenancy and the tenant had supplied their own curtains. The property manager had no knowledge of this and supplied an email from the owner instructing her to claim the cost of the replacement curtains.
The landlord was telephoned and confirmed that the items were removed before the start of the tenancy and that the tenant was not responsible for their replacement. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claim
The property manager issued a 90-day termination notice on 18 February 2025 under section 51(1) RTA. The tenant gave evidence of the significant distress and disruption that this caused the tenant and their family, requiring them to find new accommodation, to take time off work, clean the property and shift their household. The tenant was also upset that the tenancy had come to an end without any reason being given.
The tenant claimed that the property manager gave the notice without instruction from the owner and that the property manager was therefore liable to compensate the tenant for the stress and inconvenience.
The tenant advised that they were negotiating with the owner to rent the property once again.
The property manager gave evidence that the owner had given her instructions to issue the 90-day notice because she wanted to sell the property and that if she did not sell it, the owner would move back in. She advised that the property remained on the market with another real estate firm.
The tenant was able to telephone the owner during the hearing to give further evidence. The owner clearly stated and re-stated that she did not give the property manager instructions to terminate the tenancy. She stated that the property manager had told her that the tenants were “bad tenants” and it was the property manager’s suggestion to terminate the tenancy.
The property manager gave evidence as follows: a. The tenants were good tenants throughout the tenancy and she did not advise the owner to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. b. The landlord gave her clear instructions by telephone to terminate the tenancy because she wanted to sell the property or move back into it. c. She provided a copy of an email from the owner to the property manager dated 11 April 2025 which states: “I wish to put my property at 43 Liverpool Street levin on the market for sale at the current tenancy ended. Please advise the procedure in order to do so at your earliest convenience.” d. The property manager arranged for a sale appraisal to be completed by a real estate agent which the tenant confirmed had been done. e. A text message from the property manager to the tenant on 19 May 2025 confirms that the keys at the end of the tenancy were to be returned to another real estate firm, being the one which the property manager advised had listed the property for sale. f. On 6 June 2025 the owner emailed the property manager: “Thank you for the Heathy Home Assessment report. Please stop to get quotes from different agencies to make my property at 43 Liverpool Street Levin compliance to outstanding issues. I wish to live in my property. It is a beautiful house with double grazing windows throughout the whole house + all day sun. I believed, once the current tenants moved out on the 20/05/25, the contract between landlord and property manager will be ceased also on the same date. Therefore I wanted you to return my house keys please.”
The landlord’s evidence that she never instructed the property manager to terminate the tenancy is inconsistent with her emails. The owner’s emails confirm the property manager’s evidence regarding the owner’s reasons for terminating the tenancy. There is nothing in the emails to suggest that the owner objected to the notice having been given. The property manager’s text message to the tenant requiring them to deliver the keys to another real estate firm confirms that the property has been listed for sale.
The Tribunal has noted that the owner instructed the property manager to claim compensation for the missing curtains in an email dated 11 June 2025, yet gave clear evidence by telephone at the hearing that she had removed these herself at the start of the tenancy and that she was not seeking compensation from the tenant. The landlord’s verbal evidence contradicted the clear instruction given in her email to the property manager. Similarly, the landlord’s verbal evidence in relation to the termination notice contradicts her email statements. Given such inconsistency, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the very experienced property manager which was consistent and was supported by contemporaneous email and text evidence. The Tribunal therefore accepts that the property manager did not terminate the tenancy without the instructions of the owner.
While the Tribunal can sympathise with the stress and uncertainty that the tenant and their family have had to endure, it is not persuaded on the evidence before it and on the balance of probabilities that the notice to terminate was issued without instruction from the landlord. The tenant’s claim must therefore be dismissed.
As observed during the hearing, the Tribunal does not have authority to investigate how or why a formally valid termination notice was issued under section 52(1) RTA, unless there has been an application under section 54 RTA to declare a notice retaliatory. No such claim was made in this case. The issue of whether a termination notice was issued with the owner’s authority is an issue between owner and property manager, not property manager and tenant.
As neither party has substantially succeeded in their application, no order is made regarding name suppression or reimbursement of the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299801 — Cleanliness at 43 Liverpool Street, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299801 — Cleanliness at 43 Liverpool Street, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.