What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310661 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5310661?

Cleaning: $130.50 awarded to landlord; Dumping Of Pallet: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,472.14 awarded to landlord; Wall And Paint Remediation: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310661?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12422858-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310661 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5310661?

Cleaning: $130.50 awarded to landlord; Dumping Of Pallet: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,472.14 awarded to landlord; Wall And Paint Remediation: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310661?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12422858-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 7 Tarbett Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310661 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 2, 7 Tarbett Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310661 — 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 5310661 — net $399.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025	$1,472.14	Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025
Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain	$130.50	Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain
Dumping of pallet	$20.00	Dumping of pallet
Wall and paint remediation	$180.00	Wall and paint remediation
Ensuite lock replacement	$218.50	Ensuite lock replacement
Repair to waste disposal unit	$260.12	Repair to waste disposal unit
Garage door	$250.00	Garage door
Carpet replacement	$1,000.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$399.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$399.26

Claims and awards for application 5310661 — net $399.26 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025

Amount: $1,472.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025

Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain

Amount: $130.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain

Dumping of pallet

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Dumping of pallet

Wall and paint remediation

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall and paint remediation

Ensuite lock replacement

Amount: $218.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Ensuite lock replacement

Dismissed claims

Lawn Mowing Costs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For Evolve Forward Ltd $399.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (6532516-001) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For Evolve Forward Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Ms Cawte, Branch Manager, and Ms Carson, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant notified the Registry that they were unable to appear at the hearing. No explanation was offered for the non-attendance and there was no request for an adjournment. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 27 April 2024 with the fixed term ending on 10 July 2025. The tenant vacated the property at the end of the fixed term.
On 22 July 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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.
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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,472.14. The amount claimed is ordered.

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)of the Act. Cleaning and curtain cleaning
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and seeks $329.67 for cleaning and curtain cleaning costs and provided an invoice for the amount sought.
The landlord said the property was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy and provided a pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs which confirm this.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord identified the following cleanliness issues: a. The floors in the lounge were sticky and needed mopping. b. The lounge and one set of bedroom curtains were marked. c. One of the kitchen cupboards needed wiping out, the range hood was greasy, and the floors needed mopping. d. The bathroom grout needed cleaning, there was a build-up in the corner of the shower, the shower tiles needed cleaning and the chrome shower head was dirty. e. The ensuite grout needed cleaning.
The tenant disputes the property was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. In an e-mail to the Tribunal dated 8 September 2025 the tenant stated “...Abode Cleaners (who have a great reputation), who I have used for years were horrified that an additional cleaning bill was received. Both Abode and my partner completed a detailed clean thought out the property prior to my departure.” Analysis and Decision
In Beaven Realty Limited – As Agent For Xian Juian Chew v Kristian Pilgram [2025] NZTT 515 3354 the Tribunal held: “The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ cleaned. What is required is that premises, included the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.”
There is no formula for determining what is reasonably clean and tidy. The tribunal is required to evaluate all of the available evidence and determine if the reasonable person would consider the premises to have been returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
In this case the Tribunal finds that there were small areas which required additional cleaning at the end of the tenancy. In particular, one of the kitchen cabinets required wiping, the bathroom grout and tiles required additional cleaning, and the lounge and bedroom curtains needed to be washed and rehung.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable for the additional cleaning that was required. The Tribunal awards $50.00 for cleaning and $80.50 for curtain cleaning. Lawns and dumping of pallet
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice for $80.50 after paying a contractor to mow the lawns and remove and dump a pallet they say the tenant left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy photographs show the small lawn area was newly sown with very little growth.
The end of tenancy photographs shows the lawns had grown. There was a pallet left in the garden that was not present at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the photographs the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition. The lawns were longer but not overgrown. The claim for lawn mowing costs is dismissed.
The Tribunal finds that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and awards $20.00 compensation for the removal and dumping of the pallet.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Wall and paint remediation
The landlord seeks $220.00 after paying a contractor to repair, patch and paint the walls is the downstairs bedroom, garage, stairwell, and lounge and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The property was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy, and the pre- tenancy photographs show the walls and paint work to be free of any defects.
The landlord drew the Tribunals attention to the following wall and paint damage they say was caused by the tenant, during the tenancy, which was more than fair wear and tear: a. Paint chips on the hallway wall. b. Paint scrape mark on the lounge balustrade. c. Paint scrape mark in bedroom one. d. Large patch of missing paint, five large dots of missing paint, paint scratches and a dent in the wall and a gouge mark in the door frame of bedroom two. e. Wall gouge and paint chips on the wall in the garage.
The tenant in her e-mail to the Tribunal states “I had also asked for a quote for the alleged marked walls which was never forthcoming. I believe that this claim is nefarious & believe that all reasonable steps were taken to present the property, aside from fair wear and tear, after 16 months of occupancy”. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property. The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage to the walls and paint work in bedroom two and the garage is more than fair wear and tear.
When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal 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 determining betterment, the Tribunal will take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy.
Having considered all of the evidence and taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal awards $180.00 for wall and paint remediation. Ensuite lock replacement
The landlord seeks $218.50 after paying a contractor to replace the ensuite lock and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord said they arranged for the lock to be replaced during the tenancy after the tenant forced the lock, breaking it, to regain entry to the ensuite after locking herself out. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant damaged the lock during the tenancy and is liable for the replacement costs.
The amount claimed is ordered. Insinkerator repair
The landlord seeks $260.12 after paying a contractor to repair the insinkerator unit and replace the badly ripped splash guard and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord stated that the insinkerator was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy and in perfect working order. At the end of the tenancy the unit was seized, and the splash guard badly torn. Analysis and decision
The end of tenancy photographs shows the condition of the insinkerator splash guard at the end of the tenancy. The splash guard was badly torn. The contractors invoice indicated that the unit was seized and the blades needed to be freed.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the insinkerator unit was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered. Garage door panel replacement
The landlord seeks $811.90 after paying a contractor to replace the dented bottom garage door panel and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord states the garage door was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy and provided pre-tenancy photographs which prove it was in perfect condition.
The landlord states the tenant damaged the garage door during the tenancy causing two obvious dents to the lower exterior panel. The landlord acknowledged the damage was cosmetic and did not effect the doors functionality. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage to the lower panel of the garage door was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The landlord acknowledged that the damage was cosmetic and did not effect the functionality of the door. The Tribunal notes that there was no attempt to fix the dent, rather the whole panel was replaced. Given these factors the Tribunal awards $250.00 for the damaged garage door panel. Replacement carpet
The landlord seeks $1950.00 - three x $650.00 insurance excesses, to replace the carpet in two of the bedrooms and the garage which they say was stained by the tenant during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord provided evidence of their insurance excess and quotes from a supplier in support of their claim. The landlord said their insurance company had accepted the claim, but they were unable to confirm if the carpet had been replaced
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy and the pre-tenancy inspection photographs bear this out.
The landlord drew the Tribunal’s attention to the end of tenancy photographs which showed the following damage: a. The carpet in bedroom one had three separate discrete stains. b. The carpet in bedroom two had five separate discrete stains. c. The carpet in the garage had black marks.
The tenant disputed the carpet was stained stating in her e-mail “Please find attached the Jae’s carpet cleaning [invoice], who assured me they got the stains out.” The invoice from the contractor was provided. The invoice indicates that three bedrooms and a stain in one room was cleaned and treated on 11 July 2025.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with additional end of tenancy photographs showing the carpet in the two bedrooms and garage. These photographs were taken on 16 July 2025 after the carpets had been professionally cleaned. The photographs show: a. One faint stain in bedroom one. b. One red stain and one faint stain in bedroom two. c. Black marks on the garage carpet. Analysis and decision
Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the stains in bedroom one and bedroom two were caused by the tenant during the tenancy and are more than fair wear and tear.
When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal 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 determining betterment, the Tribunal will take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy.
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy and is now visibly marked. The stains were not able to be removed through professional carpet cleaning. The landlord has claimed insurance to replace the carpet and the underlay. Taking all of these matters into consideration the Tribunal awards $1000.00 compensation for carpet replacement in the bedrooms.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the damage to the carpet in the garage is more than fair wear and tear. There is nothing to suggest the tenant has carelessly or intentionally damaged this carpet. The black marks appear to be consistent with a vehicle being driven and parked on the carpet and are concentrated at the entrance of the garage near the garage door. The claim for $650.00 insurance excess to replace the garage carpet is dismissed. Costs
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For Evolve Forward Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful but did not seek name suppression.

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 5310661 — net $399.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025	$1,472.14	Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025
Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain	$130.50	Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain
Dumping of pallet	$20.00	Dumping of pallet
Wall and paint remediation	$180.00	Wall and paint remediation
Ensuite lock replacement	$218.50	Ensuite lock replacement
Repair to waste disposal unit	$260.12	Repair to waste disposal unit
Garage door	$250.00	Garage door
Carpet replacement	$1,000.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$399.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$399.26

Claims and awards for application 5310661 — net $399.26 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025

Amount: $1,472.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 10 July 2025

Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain

Amount: $130.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: including washing and rehanging curtain

Dumping of pallet

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Dumping of pallet

Wall and paint remediation

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall and paint remediation

Ensuite lock replacement

Amount: $218.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Ensuite lock replacement

Dismissed claims

Lawn Mowing Costs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For Evolve Forward Ltd $399.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (6532516-001) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For Evolve Forward Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Ms Cawte, Branch Manager, and Ms Carson, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant notified the Registry that they were unable to appear at the hearing. No explanation was offered for the non-attendance and there was no request for an adjournment. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 27 April 2024 with the fixed term ending on 10 July 2025. The tenant vacated the property at the end of the fixed term.
On 22 July 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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.
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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,472.14. The amount claimed is ordered.

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)of the Act. Cleaning and curtain cleaning
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and seeks $329.67 for cleaning and curtain cleaning costs and provided an invoice for the amount sought.
The landlord said the property was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy and provided a pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs which confirm this.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord identified the following cleanliness issues: a. The floors in the lounge were sticky and needed mopping. b. The lounge and one set of bedroom curtains were marked. c. One of the kitchen cupboards needed wiping out, the range hood was greasy, and the floors needed mopping. d. The bathroom grout needed cleaning, there was a build-up in the corner of the shower, the shower tiles needed cleaning and the chrome shower head was dirty. e. The ensuite grout needed cleaning.
The tenant disputes the property was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. In an e-mail to the Tribunal dated 8 September 2025 the tenant stated “...Abode Cleaners (who have a great reputation), who I have used for years were horrified that an additional cleaning bill was received. Both Abode and my partner completed a detailed clean thought out the property prior to my departure.” Analysis and Decision
In Beaven Realty Limited – As Agent For Xian Juian Chew v Kristian Pilgram [2025] NZTT 515 3354 the Tribunal held: “The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ cleaned. What is required is that premises, included the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.”
There is no formula for determining what is reasonably clean and tidy. The tribunal is required to evaluate all of the available evidence and determine if the reasonable person would consider the premises to have been returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
In this case the Tribunal finds that there were small areas which required additional cleaning at the end of the tenancy. In particular, one of the kitchen cabinets required wiping, the bathroom grout and tiles required additional cleaning, and the lounge and bedroom curtains needed to be washed and rehung.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable for the additional cleaning that was required. The Tribunal awards $50.00 for cleaning and $80.50 for curtain cleaning. Lawns and dumping of pallet
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice for $80.50 after paying a contractor to mow the lawns and remove and dump a pallet they say the tenant left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy photographs show the small lawn area was newly sown with very little growth.
The end of tenancy photographs shows the lawns had grown. There was a pallet left in the garden that was not present at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the photographs the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition. The lawns were longer but not overgrown. The claim for lawn mowing costs is dismissed.
The Tribunal finds that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and awards $20.00 compensation for the removal and dumping of the pallet.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Wall and paint remediation
The landlord seeks $220.00 after paying a contractor to repair, patch and paint the walls is the downstairs bedroom, garage, stairwell, and lounge and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The property was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy, and the pre- tenancy photographs show the walls and paint work to be free of any defects.
The landlord drew the Tribunals attention to the following wall and paint damage they say was caused by the tenant, during the tenancy, which was more than fair wear and tear: a. Paint chips on the hallway wall. b. Paint scrape mark on the lounge balustrade. c. Paint scrape mark in bedroom one. d. Large patch of missing paint, five large dots of missing paint, paint scratches and a dent in the wall and a gouge mark in the door frame of bedroom two. e. Wall gouge and paint chips on the wall in the garage.
The tenant in her e-mail to the Tribunal states “I had also asked for a quote for the alleged marked walls which was never forthcoming. I believe that this claim is nefarious & believe that all reasonable steps were taken to present the property, aside from fair wear and tear, after 16 months of occupancy”. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property. The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage to the walls and paint work in bedroom two and the garage is more than fair wear and tear.
When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal 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 determining betterment, the Tribunal will take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy.
Having considered all of the evidence and taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal awards $180.00 for wall and paint remediation. Ensuite lock replacement
The landlord seeks $218.50 after paying a contractor to replace the ensuite lock and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord said they arranged for the lock to be replaced during the tenancy after the tenant forced the lock, breaking it, to regain entry to the ensuite after locking herself out. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant damaged the lock during the tenancy and is liable for the replacement costs.
The amount claimed is ordered. Insinkerator repair
The landlord seeks $260.12 after paying a contractor to repair the insinkerator unit and replace the badly ripped splash guard and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord stated that the insinkerator was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy and in perfect working order. At the end of the tenancy the unit was seized, and the splash guard badly torn. Analysis and decision
The end of tenancy photographs shows the condition of the insinkerator splash guard at the end of the tenancy. The splash guard was badly torn. The contractors invoice indicated that the unit was seized and the blades needed to be freed.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the insinkerator unit was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered. Garage door panel replacement
The landlord seeks $811.90 after paying a contractor to replace the dented bottom garage door panel and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The landlord states the garage door was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy and provided pre-tenancy photographs which prove it was in perfect condition.
The landlord states the tenant damaged the garage door during the tenancy causing two obvious dents to the lower exterior panel. The landlord acknowledged the damage was cosmetic and did not effect the doors functionality. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage to the lower panel of the garage door was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The landlord acknowledged that the damage was cosmetic and did not effect the functionality of the door. The Tribunal notes that there was no attempt to fix the dent, rather the whole panel was replaced. Given these factors the Tribunal awards $250.00 for the damaged garage door panel. Replacement carpet
The landlord seeks $1950.00 - three x $650.00 insurance excesses, to replace the carpet in two of the bedrooms and the garage which they say was stained by the tenant during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord provided evidence of their insurance excess and quotes from a supplier in support of their claim. The landlord said their insurance company had accepted the claim, but they were unable to confirm if the carpet had been replaced
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy and the pre-tenancy inspection photographs bear this out.
The landlord drew the Tribunal’s attention to the end of tenancy photographs which showed the following damage: a. The carpet in bedroom one had three separate discrete stains. b. The carpet in bedroom two had five separate discrete stains. c. The carpet in the garage had black marks.
The tenant disputed the carpet was stained stating in her e-mail “Please find attached the Jae’s carpet cleaning [invoice], who assured me they got the stains out.” The invoice from the contractor was provided. The invoice indicates that three bedrooms and a stain in one room was cleaned and treated on 11 July 2025.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with additional end of tenancy photographs showing the carpet in the two bedrooms and garage. These photographs were taken on 16 July 2025 after the carpets had been professionally cleaned. The photographs show: a. One faint stain in bedroom one. b. One red stain and one faint stain in bedroom two. c. Black marks on the garage carpet. Analysis and decision
Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the stains in bedroom one and bedroom two were caused by the tenant during the tenancy and are more than fair wear and tear.
When awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal 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 determining betterment, the Tribunal will take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy.
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy and is now visibly marked. The stains were not able to be removed through professional carpet cleaning. The landlord has claimed insurance to replace the carpet and the underlay. Taking all of these matters into consideration the Tribunal awards $1000.00 compensation for carpet replacement in the bedrooms.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the damage to the carpet in the garage is more than fair wear and tear. There is nothing to suggest the tenant has carelessly or intentionally damaged this carpet. The black marks appear to be consistent with a vehicle being driven and parked on the carpet and are concentrated at the entrance of the garage near the garage door. The claim for $650.00 insurance excess to replace the garage carpet is dismissed. Costs
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited As The Agent For Evolve Forward Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful but did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310661 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 7 Tarbett Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310661 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 7 Tarbett Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.