What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302894 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6530696-003) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5302894?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $298.58 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $85.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302894?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302894 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6530696-003) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5302894?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $298.58 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $85.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302894?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53C Port Street West, Feilding, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302894 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302894. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$90.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: Wall	$85.00	Repairs: Wall
Hob replacement (depreciated	$298.58	Hob replacement (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by video and the landlord attended by telephone.

The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 2 May 2025, but the tenant returned to the tenancy to clean it on 3 and 4 May 2025. The landlord claims an extra day rent for the tenant not vacating by the date that the tenancy ended.

The tenant said that she was keen to ensure the premises were left in a clean state. She also said that open homes were carried out these days as the premises was on the market for sale. This means that the landlord was not significantly inconvenienced by the tenant not vacating on the last day of the tenancy.

I have awarded one day of rent (rather than two days) because the tenant should have vacated but the landlord must have agreed to her returning because the tenant was given access to the premises.

The landlord claimed for repairs to the heater in the lounge. The landlord produced a photograph showing the vanes of the heater were not attached.

The tenant said that there was no problem with the heater at the end of the tenancy and it was not broken. She said that she had cleaned the heater during the tenancy.

The invoice produced by the landlord includes the annual service of the heat pump. The invoice states that the vanes were repaired but it is not clear what was wrong with them.

It is not clear from the evidence that the tenant caused damage to the heat pump or that the vanes needed replacing as part of the annual service. The landlord’s claim for the tenant to pay for the heat pump service and repair is dismissed.

The landlord claims for replacement of the kitchen hob including the cost of cutting the benchtop to fit the new hob.

The tenant said that there was a small chip at the front of the hob which was caused accidentally when she placed some dishes there. The tenant said that the hob was replaced before the tenancy ended and she spent a week without the use of the hob.

The landlord did not submit an insurance claim for damage which I accept would have been caused accidentally by the tenant. Under section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the principles established in Holler & Rouse v Osaki 1 , the landlord is required to claim on their insurance for accidental or careless damage. The tenant is only liable for the insurance excess (up to $1,000 or the actual excess, whichever is lower), unless the damage was intentional or caused by an unlawful act.

According to the tenancy agreement the insurance excess is $750.00. The cost of a new hob was $597.17 and the cost of cutting the bench was $184.00. While the landlord is claiming $781.17, which is more than the insurance excess, I do not accept that the tenant should be liable for the cost of cutting the benchtop. That is because there is insufficient evidence that a hob could not be purchased to fit the hole left by the old hob.

While the new hob cost $597.17, the Tribunal must ensure that depreciation is taken into account, and that the landlord is not placed in a better position than before the damage occurred. The compensation awarded is therefore adjusted to reflect the depreciated value of the item.

There was no evidence before the Tribunal as to the age of the hob. In the absence of such evidence, I adopt a conservative approach and assume the hob was at least halfway through its expected lifespan of 8 – 15 years. Accordingly, depreciation is calculated on the basis of a 8 year lifespan, with 4 years use.

The amount awarded for the hob is $298.58.

The landlord claims for painting, plastering and repairing walls at the premises. There was one photograph showing damage which the tenant acknowledged was caused by a pencil. I note that there was at least one site of wall damage at the beginning of the tenancy as evidenced in the ingoing inspection report.

On the evidence produced I consider that a reasonable amount for repair of the hole in the wall is $85.00.

Because Reh Property Management Limited As Agent For Ingrid Foss And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302894. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$90.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: Wall	$85.00	Repairs: Wall
Hob replacement (depreciated	$298.58	Hob replacement (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by video and the landlord attended by telephone.

The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

I have awarded one day of rent (rather than two days) because the tenant should have vacated but the landlord must have agreed to her returning because the tenant was given access to the premises.

The landlord claimed for repairs to the heater in the lounge. The landlord produced a photograph showing the vanes of the heater were not attached.

The tenant said that there was no problem with the heater at the end of the tenancy and it was not broken. She said that she had cleaned the heater during the tenancy.

The invoice produced by the landlord includes the annual service of the heat pump. The invoice states that the vanes were repaired but it is not clear what was wrong with them.

The landlord claims for replacement of the kitchen hob including the cost of cutting the benchtop to fit the new hob.

The amount awarded for the hob is $298.58.

On the evidence produced I consider that a reasonable amount for repair of the hole in the wall is $85.00.

Because Reh Property Management Limited As Agent For Ingrid Foss And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302894 — Property damage at 53C Port Street West, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302894 — Property damage at 53C Port Street West, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.