What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299834 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5299834?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $317.40 awarded to landlord; To Wall: $240.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299834?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12387462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299834 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5299834?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $317.40 awarded to landlord; To Wall: $240.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299834?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12387462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Victoria Street, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299834 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299834 — net $1,845.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$140.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement	$1,120.00	Carpet replacement
Lock/key replacement	$317.40	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to wall	$240.44	Repairs: to wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,845.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,845.84

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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, 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 carpet in one bedroom was stained during the tenancy. The amount ordered for carpet cleaning/stain removal to remedy this breach, is established by the photographs and invoice provided.

The tenant did not return all of the keys provided. The evidence establishes that 4 out of 7 keys were returned at the end of the tenancy on 30/4/2025, and the missing keys were to different locks. The applicant said some keys were returned that did not match any of the locks. The tenant said this was because she had keys for both a new property she had bought and this property. It was a stressful time, and she considers she should have been afforded time to remedy the breach.

The landlord confirmed that she had emailed the tenant advising her of the breach and asking her to return the correct keys on 5 May 2025.

I am satisfied the tenant has breached the obligation she had to return the keys provided at the beginning of the tenancy and that the amount awarded is fair and actual compensation. While a landlord does not need to give a departing tenant additional time to remedy breaches particularly where the tenant has ended a fixed term contract early, the landlord did provide some leeway before asking the locksmith to change the locks.

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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in one bedroom was extensively stained by the tenant’s elderly cat either vomiting or pooing in two separate parts of a bedroom. The damage was compounded by one of the tenant’s “panicking” and using a kitchen cleaning product to try and remove the mess/stains. The evidence from both parties confirms that the stained areas could not be remedied with professional cleaning.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear and is in my view correctly attributed to the tenant’s carelessness both in having an old cat inside on carpet and then using incorrect products to clean the stains; thus worsening them. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord does not have insurance cover for pet damage. The cost of replacing the carpet was $1,406 which is less than the 4 weeks rent cap that applies to careless damage. ($560 x 4 being $2,240).

I have taken into account 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 depreciation at 20%, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and it’s likely useful lifespan. I have not considered the tenant’s submission that the carpet could have been patched for a lesser price as she did not provide any evidence to support this claim. It is also likely that patching would not have restored the carpet to a reasonable likeness given that two quite large and distinct patches would have been required in two separate areas of the room.

I have awarded the cost of removing a tv bracket and repairing the bedroom wall as the evidence establishes that there was no bracket there at the commencement of the tenancy. Section 42B enables a tenant to install a fixture such as a tv bracket but requires the tenant to remove it and return the wall to its original condition at the end of the tenancy.

The amount awarded is established by the evidence and considered reasonable.

The tenant is to collect the tv and bracket from the property this weekend as agreed at the hearing.

The tenant’s submission that she should not be liable for any of the costs awarded as the landlord did not contest the request for a refund of the bond that she sent to the bond centre is not accepted.

While completely agreeing with the tenant that a large property manager such as the applicant should have processes in place to ensure inadvertent “administrative” errors such as occurred here are not made and contested bonds refunded. I am satisfied that the tenant was on notice that the landlord had claims against her bond on 5 May when these issues were detailed in an email to her. The bond was released to her on or before 12 June (when she emailed and thanked the property manager for releasing the bond) and the landlord then lodged the claim for compensation on 3 July. The timeframes are not sufficient to find that she has been significantly disadvantaged by the error.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve the requested name suppression for the landlord.

I have also approved name suppression for the tenant. Her bond has more than covered her liability and there is no public interest in publication of her name, given the admitted shortcomings in the landlord processes that have contributed to this claim being before the Tribunal for consideration.

I note finally that this order does not prevent the tenant from bringing her own application to the Tribunal if (as she indicated) she considers the landlord has breached its obligations under the RTA. As explained those issues cannot be considered by the Tribunal in the absence of an application from her outlining the claims and the remedies sought.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299834 — net $1,845.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$140.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement	$1,120.00	Carpet replacement
Lock/key replacement	$317.40	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to wall	$240.44	Repairs: to wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,845.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,845.84

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The carpet in one bedroom was stained during the tenancy. The amount ordered for carpet cleaning/stain removal to remedy this breach, is established by the photographs and invoice provided.

The landlord confirmed that she had emailed the tenant advising her of the breach and asking her to return the correct keys on 5 May 2025.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amount awarded is established by the evidence and considered reasonable.

The tenant is to collect the tv and bracket from the property this weekend as agreed at the hearing.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve the requested name suppression for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299834 — Property damage at 11 Victoria Street, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299834 — Property damage at 11 Victoria Street, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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