What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307059 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $449.55 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5307059?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $45.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,771.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $677.74 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $126.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12456954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307059 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $449.55 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5307059?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $45.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,771.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $677.74 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $126.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12456954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4A Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5307059 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307059 — net $449.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates as at end of tenancy	$126.42	Water rates as at end of tenancy
Cleaning	$130.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$677.74	Rubbish removal
Replacement timber strip	$45.96	Replacement timber strip
Repairs and painting for damage	$670.00	Repairs and painting for damage
Carpet replacement	$1,771.43	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$449.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$449.55

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $449.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3425291-010) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
Ms Watson lived at the tenancy from 30 August 2024 to 29 May 2025. After the tenancy ended Mr Halliday, the landlord, has made a claim against her which largely relates to outstanding water rates and the condition in which she left the premises at the end of the tenancy.
At a mediation on 18 August 2025 the tenant accepted several of the claims – the water rates, the repairs and painting, the rubbish removal and the replacement timber strip.
The claim was then referred to the Tenancy Tribunal to make findings on the remaining claims, which are set out below. Carpet cleaning and replacement
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.
On the evidence available to me I find that the tenant carelessly permitted the damage. This is because I accept the evidence indicating that the dogs residing at the tenancy urinated on the carpet throughout the premises. It was no isolated incident which could be described as accidental.
I accept that the carpets needed to be replaced because cleaning could not remove the odour. The photos show urination stains not only on the carpet but also the underlay.
Not only were there urine stains, but there were also red soda stains on the carpet.
The landlord claims two excesses of $2,000.00 each that he was required to pay his insurance company for the carpets to be replaced.
However, as I explained at today’s hearing, Ms Watson is required to pay the lesser of any excess payable, or the depreciated value of the carpet.
I am ordering Ms Watson to pay the depreciated value of the carpet which at today’s hearing was established as being $1,771.43. Cleaning
Tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean.
Ms Watson says that she has photos which she was unable to upload that show that she left the premises reasonably clean.
However, based on the photographs provided by Mr Halliday I can see that the floors were not clean, the oven wasn’t cleaned, a toilet wasn’t cleaned and a laundry cupboard was not cleaned.
On this evidence I have assessed the cost of cleaning the premises to a reasonable standard would be $130.00. This would include any materials used for cleaning. Exemplary damages
Mr Halliday seeks an award of exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of her tenancy agreement because she had more people residing at the tenancy than the maximum number permitted in her tenancy agreement and more dogs than the one she was permitted to have.
The Tribunal can only make an award of exemplary damages when specific breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are described as unlawful acts for which an award of exemplary damages may be made. Schedule 1A of the RTA describes the unlawful acts and the maximum possible awards of exemplary damages.
A breach of a tenancy agreement in terms of the number of dogs and the number of people residing at the tenancy is not described as an unlawful act under the RTA and so I am unable to make an award of exemplary damages. Travel costs for second trip to the premises
Mr Halliday claims $1,053.78 as the cost of the second trip he had to make to the premises to have the above issues remedied.
I am dismissing this claim because any such costs are part and parcel of being in the business of being a landlord.
Had there been an unlawful act as specified under the RTA, the second trip may have been taken into account when considering the effect of the unlawful act on the other party. However given that I have found that there was no unlawful act which attracts an award of exemplary damages, the tenant cannot be found liable for these costs. Stress and anxiety
Mr Halliday also makes a claim for $2,000.00 because of the stress and anxiety he has experienced because of the condition in which the tenant left the premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not award compensation for personal stress, inconvenience, or emotional stress suffered by landlords or tenants. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims for financial loss, property damage, unpaid rent or breaches of the RTA that allow for exemplary damages.
Stress and anxiety is only considered in cases where there have been unlawful acts. The effect on a party because of the unlawful act is one of the factors considered when making the award of exemplary damages.
Given that I have already found that there has been no unlawful act that attracts an award of exemplary damages in this case, Mr Halliday’s claim for stress and anxiety is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering Ms Watson to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against her. C ter Haar 24 September 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307059 — net $449.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates as at end of tenancy	$126.42	Water rates as at end of tenancy
Cleaning	$130.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$677.74	Rubbish removal
Replacement timber strip	$45.96	Replacement timber strip
Repairs and painting for damage	$670.00	Repairs and painting for damage
Carpet replacement	$1,771.43	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$449.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$449.55

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $449.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3425291-010) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
Ms Watson lived at the tenancy from 30 August 2024 to 29 May 2025. After the tenancy ended Mr Halliday, the landlord, has made a claim against her which largely relates to outstanding water rates and the condition in which she left the premises at the end of the tenancy.
At a mediation on 18 August 2025 the tenant accepted several of the claims – the water rates, the repairs and painting, the rubbish removal and the replacement timber strip.
The claim was then referred to the Tenancy Tribunal to make findings on the remaining claims, which are set out below. Carpet cleaning and replacement
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.
On the evidence available to me I find that the tenant carelessly permitted the damage. This is because I accept the evidence indicating that the dogs residing at the tenancy urinated on the carpet throughout the premises. It was no isolated incident which could be described as accidental.
I accept that the carpets needed to be replaced because cleaning could not remove the odour. The photos show urination stains not only on the carpet but also the underlay.
Not only were there urine stains, but there were also red soda stains on the carpet.
The landlord claims two excesses of $2,000.00 each that he was required to pay his insurance company for the carpets to be replaced.
However, as I explained at today’s hearing, Ms Watson is required to pay the lesser of any excess payable, or the depreciated value of the carpet.
I am ordering Ms Watson to pay the depreciated value of the carpet which at today’s hearing was established as being $1,771.43. Cleaning
Tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean.
Ms Watson says that she has photos which she was unable to upload that show that she left the premises reasonably clean.
However, based on the photographs provided by Mr Halliday I can see that the floors were not clean, the oven wasn’t cleaned, a toilet wasn’t cleaned and a laundry cupboard was not cleaned.
On this evidence I have assessed the cost of cleaning the premises to a reasonable standard would be $130.00. This would include any materials used for cleaning. Exemplary damages
Mr Halliday seeks an award of exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of her tenancy agreement because she had more people residing at the tenancy than the maximum number permitted in her tenancy agreement and more dogs than the one she was permitted to have.
The Tribunal can only make an award of exemplary damages when specific breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are described as unlawful acts for which an award of exemplary damages may be made. Schedule 1A of the RTA describes the unlawful acts and the maximum possible awards of exemplary damages.
A breach of a tenancy agreement in terms of the number of dogs and the number of people residing at the tenancy is not described as an unlawful act under the RTA and so I am unable to make an award of exemplary damages. Travel costs for second trip to the premises
Mr Halliday claims $1,053.78 as the cost of the second trip he had to make to the premises to have the above issues remedied.
I am dismissing this claim because any such costs are part and parcel of being in the business of being a landlord.
Had there been an unlawful act as specified under the RTA, the second trip may have been taken into account when considering the effect of the unlawful act on the other party. However given that I have found that there was no unlawful act which attracts an award of exemplary damages, the tenant cannot be found liable for these costs. Stress and anxiety
Mr Halliday also makes a claim for $2,000.00 because of the stress and anxiety he has experienced because of the condition in which the tenant left the premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not award compensation for personal stress, inconvenience, or emotional stress suffered by landlords or tenants. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims for financial loss, property damage, unpaid rent or breaches of the RTA that allow for exemplary damages.
Stress and anxiety is only considered in cases where there have been unlawful acts. The effect on a party because of the unlawful act is one of the factors considered when making the award of exemplary damages.
Given that I have already found that there has been no unlawful act that attracts an award of exemplary damages in this case, Mr Halliday’s claim for stress and anxiety is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering Ms Watson to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against her. C ter Haar 24 September 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307059 — Property damage at 4A Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307059 — Property damage at 4A Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.