What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303695 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 5303695?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $149.99 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $297.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $17.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $544.00 awarded to landlord; Electrician Fee: $174.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Compensation -C…: $419.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $101.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $243.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303695?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303695?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12383687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303695 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 5303695?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $149.99 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $297.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $17.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $544.00 awarded to landlord; Electrician Fee: $174.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Compensation -C…: $419.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $101.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $243.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303695?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303695?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12383687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303695 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303695 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303695 — net $1,639.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$297.43	Electricity
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags	$4.93	Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags
Rubbish removal: "Dump fee	$101.60	Rubbish removal: "Dump fee
Lock/key replacement	$8.00	Lock/key replacement
Compensation - hot plate	$40.00	Compensation - hot plate
Compensation - Air fryer	$149.99	Compensation - Air fryer
Replace furnishings: Compensation -Curtain rail and curtain + labour	$419.00	Replace furnishings: Compensation -Curtain rail and curtain + labour
Compensation - damaged wardrobe	$50.00	Compensation - damaged wardrobe
Compensation - carpet replacement	$544.00	Compensation - carpet replacement
Window repairs: Compensation Window	$243.76	Window repairs: Compensation Window
Repairs: Electrician fee	$174.60	Repairs: Electrician fee
Repairs: Wall damage	$800.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Light bulbs/batteries	$17.96	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$1,639.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,639.27

Claims and awards for application 5303695 — net $1,639.27 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electricity

Amount: $297.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electricity

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags

Amount: $4.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags

Rubbish removal: "Dump fee

Amount: $101.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: "Dump fee

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $8.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Dismissed claims

An Order For Disposal Of Goods — HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR RENT?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Carlita Yevette Premila Raj and Creedence Hudson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,540.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

The landlord attended in person.
One of the tenant’s had her mother appear as her agent.
The other tenant did not appear at the hearing. He was phoned on the phone number provided in the application form at the start of the hearing but did not answer the phone call. He was served by email and the hearing proceeded without him.
For ease of reference, I will refer to both parties in the singular.

CLAIMS

The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. compensation, c. refund of the bond, and d. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

DISPOSAL ORDER

1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667

At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had uplifted all their belongings. An order in respect of disposal of the tenant’s goods was no longer required and was withdrawn. The claim for an order for disposal of goods is dismissed.

HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR RENT?

The tenancy ended on 24 May 2025 by agreement.
The landlord had given a 90-day notice in the days prior to the tenancy ending however told the tenant that they may move out earlier. Neither party provided a copy of the notice to terminate the tenancy at the hearing. I understand there was an incident between the tenants which resulted in both tenants leaving the premises on 24 May 2025. The landlord arranged with one of the tenant’s parents that the premises be surrendered to him that day, rather than having either tenant return to the premises. The landlord did not advise either of the tenant’s that he required rent in lieu of notice.
The principal of estoppel applies: a. The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. b. This principle is consistent with the manner in which the Tenancy Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction. 2 That is, the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 3 c. In this case, the four elements required to establish estoppel by representations, statements, and conduct are: 4 i. A belief or expectation by the tenant has been created or encouraged by words or conduct by the landlord; ii. To the extent an express representation is relied upon, it is clearly and unequivocally expressed; iii. The tenant reasonably relied to its detriment on the representation; and 2 Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 and 4053657. 3 Section 85 of the RTA 4 Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v Fanshawe 136 Ltd [2014] NZCA 407 at [44]. iv. It would be unconscionable to depart from the belief or expectation.
In this case: a. The landlord agreed to accept the tenant’s surrendering of the tenancy on 24 May 2025. In addition, the landlord had given the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy but added that the tenancy could end at an earlier date if the tenant’s wanted to leave earlier. b. The tenants relied on the landlord’s statement and surrendered possession accordingly. c. The landlord did not say that the tenant would be required to continue to pay rent. Had the landlord done so the tenant would likely have retained possession of the tenancy and attended to the additional cleaning, rubbish removal and repairs that the landlord subsequently attended to. d. It would be unfair to depart from the belief the landlord created that the tenancy could terminate on 24 May 2025.
Accordingly, I consider the landlord cannot now claim rent when he had previously agreed the tenancy was to terminate prior to the date in the notice to terminate and had remained silent at the relevant time he should have advised the tenants that he would require the tenant to provide 21 days’ notice or seek rent in lieu of notice.

ELECTRICITY

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facility. 5
The landlord claims $397.43 for the tenant’s electricity usage; however this was reduced to $297.43 at the hearing as the tenant had made additional payments towards the electricity following the application being filed.
By consent I make an order for electricity for the amount of $297.43. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 6 5 See section 39(3) of the RTA. 6 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 7 c. remove all rubbish, 8 d. return all keys and security devices, 9 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit, 10 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 11 g. replace standard light bulbs.
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). c. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 12 d. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 13 e. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 14 f. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 15

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed his time, being 13.25 hours at $45 per hour to clean the house and section, load a trailer with rubbish, take the rubbish to the dump (including fuel/mileage), and clean paint off the vinyl flooring. 7 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 8 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 9 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 10 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 11 See section 40(1) (ca) RTA. 12 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 13 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 14 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 15 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
I have reduced the landlords time claimed because: a. the landlord indicated the premises was cleaned to a level it can be re-let. A tenant is not responsible for cleaning a premises to a position it can be relet, and b. the landlord cleaned the bathroom however no photographs were provided of the bathroom therefore I cannot make any assessment as to how much cleaning was required.
In addition, I raised at the hearing that the Tribunal will generally compensate a landlord’s time at the rate of $30 per hour. I consider $30 is the reasonable hourly rate for the landlord’s time and award $300 to compensate the landlords time for cleaning and rubbish removal.
By consent I make orders for the following: a. Compensation - Reimbursement of rubbish bags purchased for rubbish removal (Pak n Save receipt provided)- $4.93. b. Compensation - Rubbish dump fee (receipt provided)- $101.60. c. Compensation - Replacement of 1 set of keys not returned by the tenant (receipt provided) - $8. d. Compensation - Reimbursement of cost to replace a hot plate that was provided at the start of the tenancy in new condition. At the end of the tenancy the landlord located the hot plate outside, rusty and not usable (Warehouse receipt provided)- $40. e. Compensation to replace benchtop oven (replaced with air fryer) (Briscoes receipt provided) - $149.99. f. Compensation - Reimbursement for four lightbulbs the tenant did not replace (invoice provided) - $17.96.

CURTAINS

The landlord said that there were curtains that were provided at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy the curtains and some curtain rails had been removed. The landlord claimed: a. $134 for the curtain rails b. $165 for new curtains in the lounge, for the ranch slider, the kitchen, and the bedroom (being half the replacement cost of $330 to allow for betterment and depreciation). The curtains were approximately 2-3 years old. c. $180 being 4 hours x $45 per hour labour to installs the curtain rails, hem install the new curtains.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs and Spotlight receipts (for the purchase of the curtain rails and curtains) .in support of the claim. The tenant did not dispute that the original curtains had been removed and the amount claimed for the curtain rails and curtains was undisputed.
Because the Tribunal will generally compensate a landlord’s time at the rate of $30 per hour, I will award the full amount claimed for the curtain rails and curtains, $299, and allow $120 for the landlord’s time. The total amount ordered to replace and install the curtain rails and curtains is $419.

DAMAGED WARDDROBE

The landlord claims $169 in respect of damage to a free-standing wardrobe provided as a chattel with the tenancy.
Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were provided and I am satisfied this damage was likely caused during this tenancy.
Only a Bunnings advertisement has been provided to support the quantum claimed by the landlord.
The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when advertisements and quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the item.
A new tenancy has commenced without the landlord replacing the free- standing wardrobe. The landlord was also unable to advise how much he paid for the wardrobe and its age. In the circumstances I consider the landlord has not established loss to the level of the amount claimed.
However, the landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenant’s breach and in the circumstances, I consider $50 is appropriate and reasonable to reflect the breach.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 16 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 17 16 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 17 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 18
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). 19
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). 20 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 21
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. 22
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. 23
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s insurance excess was $1000. Four weeks rent is $1,540.00.

CARPET REPLACMENT

The landlord claims $544 to replace carpet in the main living area and bedroom.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim. An invoice was provided in support of the claim for $1,088.13. The amount claimed is for half the invoice to reflect betterment and depreciation. 18 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 19 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 20 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 21 See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA. 22 See section 49B (1) RTA. 23 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said the carpet was approximately 2-3 years old at the commencement of the tenancy in 2024.
The landlord says the carpet was damaged by way of the tenant allowing paint to drip onto the carpet while painting. The landlord said he arranged for a carpet cleaner to clean the property however the carpet cleaner said the paint would not be able to be cleaned.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage was likely caused by the carelessness of the tenant. The amount ordered is not above the statutory limit for careless damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

KITCHEN WINDOW REPLACEMENT

The landlord claims $243.76 to repair a broken window.
The tenant accepted that the window was broken during the tenancy but disputed the amount claimed. The tenant said that had the landlord employed a local glazier the amount of the repair would have been closer to $80. No documentary evidence was provided to support this position. The landlord provided a invoice from nearby glazier.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount claimed is proved and is not unreasonable. I make an order for the window replacement of $243.76.

REMOVE NAILS AND STAPLES FROM DECK

The landlord claimed $22.50 (half an hour at the rate of $45 per hour) to remove nails and staples that the landlord said the tenant has used to secure items on the deck. No photographs were provided in support of the claim therefore I am unable to make an assessment as to the time it would reasonably take to remove the nails and staples.
I consider insufficient evidence has been provided in support of this claim and accordingly it is dismissed. WALL REPAIRS / SHELF REPAIR
The landlord claimed $900 from the tenant for wall repairs and painting, a door repair and a shelf repair: a. The amount claimed was based on an emailed breakdown of costs paid to a handyman totalling $1,050 less $150 which was the estimated amount of the handyman’s time for painting the bathroom, for which the landlord acknowledged the tenant was not responsible for. b. The landlord says the tenant caused wall damage in a number of areas of the premises, including a hole in one of the walls, poorly repairing and painting a number of walls and painting wooden trim around the home that was unpainted at the commencement of the tenancy. c. The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim. d. I consider the damage was likely caused carelessly but the efforts to repair and paint some areas poorly was likely intentional. e. The amount claimed included a repair to a shelf underneath a sink whereby the shelf had become water damaged following a leak that the tenant had not informed the landlord of. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of the need for any repairs. 24 The landlord says the tenant did not notify the tenant promptly of the leak which resulted in the shelf becoming damaged. I note however the shelf appeared quite old, and the landlord could not advise the date of the shelf, but acknowledged it was old. f. In addition, the amount claimed included a repair to a damaged door, however no photographs were provided of the damage to enable me to assess whether the damage was more than fair wear and tear. g. The tenant largely accepted liability for the damage but disputed the quantum. The tenant said she understood that the handyman would not be invoicing the amount claimed and understood some work, such as the replacing the shelf would not be charged. The tenant said they would have expected to be given the opportunity to undertake the wall repairs and other repairs.
The damage in respect of the walls is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord said the premises had likely been painted 2-3 years before this tenancy commenced in 2024.
In considering all of the above factors I consider the amount claimed should be reduced to reflect the age of the shelf replaced, the lack of photographs of the door that the landlord said was damaged and betterment and depreciation. 24 See section 40(d) of the RTA.
The amount ordered is $800. The amount ordered is proved.

SWITCH ELECTRICAL

The landlord claimed $240.96 in respect of an electrician’s invoice which was a total of $536.83. The landlord was unable to specifically identify how the amount claimed was itemised in reference to the electrician’s invoice.
The electrician’s labour totalled $293.25 25 in respect of five itemised tasks: • Replace faulty power point in garage. • Replace damaged power point and batten holder in cottage. • Refix power point and clean heat pump filters. • Replace faulty twinspot sensor light. • Fit sensor spotlight to cottage.
The tenant (through her agent who was not actually present when this occurred) said that the light batten broke through fair wear and tear when she went to change the light. I accept that the batten may have been worn based on the photograph of the light batten which indicated it was aged. The landlord could not say how old the light batten was but estimated it was over 5 years old. The landlord was unable to identify or provide evidence by way of photographs of the damaged power point. The photographs provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show one power point that had been loosened to allow the tenant to paint the wall. I accept that the electrician would have had to secure that power point.
The landlord also provided photographs of the outside light sensor cable which appeared to have been cut and the spotlight appears to have been removed. The tenant did not dispute that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
In considering all of the above matters I will award two fifth of the electrician’s labour $117.30, one security light $48.93 +GST) = $57.30 and dismiss the balance of the claim.
The invoice included an ESC Electrical Safety Certificate and Vehicle fee which it appears the landlord would likely have incurred in any event given other services were provided by the electrician to the premises and a separate premises. The amount ordered for the electrical services is $174.60.

BOND

The Bond is to be paid to landlord to offset the amounts ordered. 25 $170 + $85 (=$255) + GST.

FILING FEE

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 26
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 27
Both parties sought name suppression.
As the landlord has been substantially successful with the claim, the landlord’s name is suppressed.
The tenant has not been successful in defending the claim. The tenant’s interest in not having their name suppressed (which may impact their ability to secure future tenancies), does not outweigh the public interest in publication. Accordingly, name suppression is declined.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303695 — net $1,639.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$297.43	Electricity
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags	$4.93	Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags
Rubbish removal: "Dump fee	$101.60	Rubbish removal: "Dump fee
Lock/key replacement	$8.00	Lock/key replacement
Compensation - hot plate	$40.00	Compensation - hot plate
Compensation - Air fryer	$149.99	Compensation - Air fryer
Replace furnishings: Compensation -Curtain rail and curtain + labour	$419.00	Replace furnishings: Compensation -Curtain rail and curtain + labour
Compensation - damaged wardrobe	$50.00	Compensation - damaged wardrobe
Compensation - carpet replacement	$544.00	Compensation - carpet replacement
Window repairs: Compensation Window	$243.76	Window repairs: Compensation Window
Repairs: Electrician fee	$174.60	Repairs: Electrician fee
Repairs: Wall damage	$800.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Light bulbs/batteries	$17.96	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$1,639.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,639.27

Claims and awards for application 5303695 — net $1,639.27 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electricity

Amount: $297.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electricity

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags

Amount: $4.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Rubbish bags

Rubbish removal: "Dump fee

Amount: $101.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: "Dump fee

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $8.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Dismissed claims

An Order For Disposal Of Goods — HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR RENT?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Carlita Yevette Premila Raj and Creedence Hudson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,540.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

The landlord attended in person.
One of the tenant’s had her mother appear as her agent.
The other tenant did not appear at the hearing. He was phoned on the phone number provided in the application form at the start of the hearing but did not answer the phone call. He was served by email and the hearing proceeded without him.
For ease of reference, I will refer to both parties in the singular.

CLAIMS

The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. compensation, c. refund of the bond, and d. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

DISPOSAL ORDER

1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667

At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had uplifted all their belongings. An order in respect of disposal of the tenant’s goods was no longer required and was withdrawn. The claim for an order for disposal of goods is dismissed.

HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR RENT?

The tenancy ended on 24 May 2025 by agreement.
The landlord had given a 90-day notice in the days prior to the tenancy ending however told the tenant that they may move out earlier. Neither party provided a copy of the notice to terminate the tenancy at the hearing. I understand there was an incident between the tenants which resulted in both tenants leaving the premises on 24 May 2025. The landlord arranged with one of the tenant’s parents that the premises be surrendered to him that day, rather than having either tenant return to the premises. The landlord did not advise either of the tenant’s that he required rent in lieu of notice.
The principal of estoppel applies: a. The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. b. This principle is consistent with the manner in which the Tenancy Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction. 2 That is, the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 3 c. In this case, the four elements required to establish estoppel by representations, statements, and conduct are: 4 i. A belief or expectation by the tenant has been created or encouraged by words or conduct by the landlord; ii. To the extent an express representation is relied upon, it is clearly and unequivocally expressed; iii. The tenant reasonably relied to its detriment on the representation; and 2 Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 and 4053657. 3 Section 85 of the RTA 4 Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v Fanshawe 136 Ltd [2014] NZCA 407 at [44]. iv. It would be unconscionable to depart from the belief or expectation.
In this case: a. The landlord agreed to accept the tenant’s surrendering of the tenancy on 24 May 2025. In addition, the landlord had given the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy but added that the tenancy could end at an earlier date if the tenant’s wanted to leave earlier. b. The tenants relied on the landlord’s statement and surrendered possession accordingly. c. The landlord did not say that the tenant would be required to continue to pay rent. Had the landlord done so the tenant would likely have retained possession of the tenancy and attended to the additional cleaning, rubbish removal and repairs that the landlord subsequently attended to. d. It would be unfair to depart from the belief the landlord created that the tenancy could terminate on 24 May 2025.
Accordingly, I consider the landlord cannot now claim rent when he had previously agreed the tenancy was to terminate prior to the date in the notice to terminate and had remained silent at the relevant time he should have advised the tenants that he would require the tenant to provide 21 days’ notice or seek rent in lieu of notice.

ELECTRICITY

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facility. 5
The landlord claims $397.43 for the tenant’s electricity usage; however this was reduced to $297.43 at the hearing as the tenant had made additional payments towards the electricity following the application being filed.
By consent I make an order for electricity for the amount of $297.43. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 6 5 See section 39(3) of the RTA. 6 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 7 c. remove all rubbish, 8 d. return all keys and security devices, 9 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit, 10 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 11 g. replace standard light bulbs.
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). c. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 12 d. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 13 e. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 14 f. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 15

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed his time, being 13.25 hours at $45 per hour to clean the house and section, load a trailer with rubbish, take the rubbish to the dump (including fuel/mileage), and clean paint off the vinyl flooring. 7 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 8 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 9 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 10 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 11 See section 40(1) (ca) RTA. 12 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 13 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 14 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 15 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
I have reduced the landlords time claimed because: a. the landlord indicated the premises was cleaned to a level it can be re-let. A tenant is not responsible for cleaning a premises to a position it can be relet, and b. the landlord cleaned the bathroom however no photographs were provided of the bathroom therefore I cannot make any assessment as to how much cleaning was required.
In addition, I raised at the hearing that the Tribunal will generally compensate a landlord’s time at the rate of $30 per hour. I consider $30 is the reasonable hourly rate for the landlord’s time and award $300 to compensate the landlords time for cleaning and rubbish removal.
By consent I make orders for the following: a. Compensation - Reimbursement of rubbish bags purchased for rubbish removal (Pak n Save receipt provided)- $4.93. b. Compensation - Rubbish dump fee (receipt provided)- $101.60. c. Compensation - Replacement of 1 set of keys not returned by the tenant (receipt provided) - $8. d. Compensation - Reimbursement of cost to replace a hot plate that was provided at the start of the tenancy in new condition. At the end of the tenancy the landlord located the hot plate outside, rusty and not usable (Warehouse receipt provided)- $40. e. Compensation to replace benchtop oven (replaced with air fryer) (Briscoes receipt provided) - $149.99. f. Compensation - Reimbursement for four lightbulbs the tenant did not replace (invoice provided) - $17.96.

CURTAINS

The landlord said that there were curtains that were provided at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy the curtains and some curtain rails had been removed. The landlord claimed: a. $134 for the curtain rails b. $165 for new curtains in the lounge, for the ranch slider, the kitchen, and the bedroom (being half the replacement cost of $330 to allow for betterment and depreciation). The curtains were approximately 2-3 years old. c. $180 being 4 hours x $45 per hour labour to installs the curtain rails, hem install the new curtains.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs and Spotlight receipts (for the purchase of the curtain rails and curtains) .in support of the claim. The tenant did not dispute that the original curtains had been removed and the amount claimed for the curtain rails and curtains was undisputed.
Because the Tribunal will generally compensate a landlord’s time at the rate of $30 per hour, I will award the full amount claimed for the curtain rails and curtains, $299, and allow $120 for the landlord’s time. The total amount ordered to replace and install the curtain rails and curtains is $419.

DAMAGED WARDDROBE

The landlord claims $169 in respect of damage to a free-standing wardrobe provided as a chattel with the tenancy.
Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were provided and I am satisfied this damage was likely caused during this tenancy.
Only a Bunnings advertisement has been provided to support the quantum claimed by the landlord.
The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when advertisements and quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the item.
A new tenancy has commenced without the landlord replacing the free- standing wardrobe. The landlord was also unable to advise how much he paid for the wardrobe and its age. In the circumstances I consider the landlord has not established loss to the level of the amount claimed.
However, the landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenant’s breach and in the circumstances, I consider $50 is appropriate and reasonable to reflect the breach.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 16 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 17 16 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 17 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 18
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). 19
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). 20 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 21
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. 22
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. 23
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s insurance excess was $1000. Four weeks rent is $1,540.00.

CARPET REPLACMENT

The landlord claims $544 to replace carpet in the main living area and bedroom.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim. An invoice was provided in support of the claim for $1,088.13. The amount claimed is for half the invoice to reflect betterment and depreciation. 18 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 19 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 20 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 21 See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA. 22 See section 49B (1) RTA. 23 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said the carpet was approximately 2-3 years old at the commencement of the tenancy in 2024.
The landlord says the carpet was damaged by way of the tenant allowing paint to drip onto the carpet while painting. The landlord said he arranged for a carpet cleaner to clean the property however the carpet cleaner said the paint would not be able to be cleaned.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage was likely caused by the carelessness of the tenant. The amount ordered is not above the statutory limit for careless damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

KITCHEN WINDOW REPLACEMENT

The landlord claims $243.76 to repair a broken window.
The tenant accepted that the window was broken during the tenancy but disputed the amount claimed. The tenant said that had the landlord employed a local glazier the amount of the repair would have been closer to $80. No documentary evidence was provided to support this position. The landlord provided a invoice from nearby glazier.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount claimed is proved and is not unreasonable. I make an order for the window replacement of $243.76.

REMOVE NAILS AND STAPLES FROM DECK

The landlord claimed $22.50 (half an hour at the rate of $45 per hour) to remove nails and staples that the landlord said the tenant has used to secure items on the deck. No photographs were provided in support of the claim therefore I am unable to make an assessment as to the time it would reasonably take to remove the nails and staples.
I consider insufficient evidence has been provided in support of this claim and accordingly it is dismissed. WALL REPAIRS / SHELF REPAIR
The landlord claimed $900 from the tenant for wall repairs and painting, a door repair and a shelf repair: a. The amount claimed was based on an emailed breakdown of costs paid to a handyman totalling $1,050 less $150 which was the estimated amount of the handyman’s time for painting the bathroom, for which the landlord acknowledged the tenant was not responsible for. b. The landlord says the tenant caused wall damage in a number of areas of the premises, including a hole in one of the walls, poorly repairing and painting a number of walls and painting wooden trim around the home that was unpainted at the commencement of the tenancy. c. The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim. d. I consider the damage was likely caused carelessly but the efforts to repair and paint some areas poorly was likely intentional. e. The amount claimed included a repair to a shelf underneath a sink whereby the shelf had become water damaged following a leak that the tenant had not informed the landlord of. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of the need for any repairs. 24 The landlord says the tenant did not notify the tenant promptly of the leak which resulted in the shelf becoming damaged. I note however the shelf appeared quite old, and the landlord could not advise the date of the shelf, but acknowledged it was old. f. In addition, the amount claimed included a repair to a damaged door, however no photographs were provided of the damage to enable me to assess whether the damage was more than fair wear and tear. g. The tenant largely accepted liability for the damage but disputed the quantum. The tenant said she understood that the handyman would not be invoicing the amount claimed and understood some work, such as the replacing the shelf would not be charged. The tenant said they would have expected to be given the opportunity to undertake the wall repairs and other repairs.
The damage in respect of the walls is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord said the premises had likely been painted 2-3 years before this tenancy commenced in 2024.
In considering all of the above factors I consider the amount claimed should be reduced to reflect the age of the shelf replaced, the lack of photographs of the door that the landlord said was damaged and betterment and depreciation. 24 See section 40(d) of the RTA.
The amount ordered is $800. The amount ordered is proved.

SWITCH ELECTRICAL

The landlord claimed $240.96 in respect of an electrician’s invoice which was a total of $536.83. The landlord was unable to specifically identify how the amount claimed was itemised in reference to the electrician’s invoice.
The electrician’s labour totalled $293.25 25 in respect of five itemised tasks: • Replace faulty power point in garage. • Replace damaged power point and batten holder in cottage. • Refix power point and clean heat pump filters. • Replace faulty twinspot sensor light. • Fit sensor spotlight to cottage.
The tenant (through her agent who was not actually present when this occurred) said that the light batten broke through fair wear and tear when she went to change the light. I accept that the batten may have been worn based on the photograph of the light batten which indicated it was aged. The landlord could not say how old the light batten was but estimated it was over 5 years old. The landlord was unable to identify or provide evidence by way of photographs of the damaged power point. The photographs provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show one power point that had been loosened to allow the tenant to paint the wall. I accept that the electrician would have had to secure that power point.
The landlord also provided photographs of the outside light sensor cable which appeared to have been cut and the spotlight appears to have been removed. The tenant did not dispute that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
In considering all of the above matters I will award two fifth of the electrician’s labour $117.30, one security light $48.93 +GST) = $57.30 and dismiss the balance of the claim.
The invoice included an ESC Electrical Safety Certificate and Vehicle fee which it appears the landlord would likely have incurred in any event given other services were provided by the electrician to the premises and a separate premises. The amount ordered for the electrical services is $174.60.

BOND

The Bond is to be paid to landlord to offset the amounts ordered. 25 $170 + $85 (=$255) + GST.

FILING FEE

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 26
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 27
Both parties sought name suppression.
As the landlord has been substantially successful with the claim, the landlord’s name is suppressed.
The tenant has not been successful in defending the claim. The tenant’s interest in not having their name suppressed (which may impact their ability to secure future tenancies), does not outweigh the public interest in publication. Accordingly, name suppression is declined.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

DISPOSAL ORDER

HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR RENT?

ELECTRICITY

TENANCY?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

CURTAINS

DAMAGED WARDDROBE

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

CARPET REPLACMENT

KITCHEN WINDOW REPLACEMENT

REMOVE NAILS AND STAPLES FROM DECK

SWITCH ELECTRICAL

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

DISPOSAL ORDER

HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR RENT?

ELECTRICITY

TENANCY?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

CURTAINS

DAMAGED WARDDROBE

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

CARPET REPLACMENT

KITCHEN WINDOW REPLACEMENT

REMOVE NAILS AND STAPLES FROM DECK

SWITCH ELECTRICAL

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions