What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314459 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5314459?

Cleaning: $269.11 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,316.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5248013 D…: $4,628.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $208.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,391.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314459?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663915-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314459 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5314459?

Cleaning: $269.11 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,316.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5248013 D…: $4,628.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $208.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,391.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314459?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663915-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58D Botha Street, Tainui, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314459 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

58D Botha Street, Tainui, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314459 — 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 5314459 — net $10,493.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025	$4,628.07	Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025
Cleaning	$632.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$120.75	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$269.11	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$208.00	Lock/key replacement
Compensation - dishwasher removed from premises	$1,316.00	Compensation - dishwasher removed from premises
Repairs: Compensation for wall damage	$1,391.50	Repairs: Compensation for wall damage
Compensation - floor damage	$600.00	Compensation - floor damage
Compensation - loss of rent	$1,300.00	Compensation - loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,493.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,493.93

Claims and awards for application 5314459 — net $10,493.93 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025

Amount: $4,628.07
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025

Cleaning

Amount: $632.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $120.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $269.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $208.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Dawson Developments Otago Ltd $10,493.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 June 2025 under application 5248013
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant was served by email to an updated email address she provided the landlord for correspondence which I have accepted as her email address for service of these proceedings, as the tenant requested the landlord use this address for specific reasons and service to the email address would likely bring the proceedings to the tenant’s attention. 1 The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, including for loss of rent and 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).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations 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.
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 2 , 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 landlord has applied for rent arrears. The tenancy ended on 18 June 2025. 1 See section 91A and 91B of the RTA. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
On 10 June 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for termination, rent arrears and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The incorporation of the previous order into this order reflects the rent arrears claimed in the current application and no further rent arrears is owed by the tenant.
The bond has already been released by the Bond Centre and has off-set part of the rent arrears. Tenant’s obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 3 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 4 c. remove all rubbish, 5 d. return all keys and security devices, 6 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit, 7 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy, 8 and g. replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning considerations
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. 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).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 9 Reasonably clean does not mean 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 8 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 9 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 commercially clean. 10 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 11
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. General cleaning ($632.50), rubbish removal ($120.75) and carpet cleaning ($269.11) was required. The amounts ordered are proved with photographs from the end of the tenancy, oral evidence and invoices.

Is the tenant liable for lock/key replacement?

The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered of $208 is proved with oral evidence, the exit inspection report and an invoice.

Is the tenant liable for the cost to replace the dishwasher?

A dishwasher was damaged during the tenancy and removed by the tenant.
The landlord did not provide photographs of the damage however did provide photographs of the dishwasher space without a dishwasher and it is noted as a chattel in the tenancy agreement.
The IR265 General depreciation rates provides a dishwasher has an estimated useful lifespan of 6.66 years although properly used and maintained I consider a dishwasher might last longer than this. I understand the dishwasher was new in 2023, therefore was approximately 1.5 years old.
I have made a 1/7 deduction to the purchase price of the new dishwasher ($1,386) to reflect betterment and depreciation (total $1,188) and the delivery fee ($128). The amount ordered is $1,316.
The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

10 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 11 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

The Law - Liability for damage

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 12 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. 13 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. 14
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). 15 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). 16 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 17
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. 18 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. 19
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. Wall damage
During the tenancy the tenant caused or permitted another person to cause damages to the walls. Some of the wall damage appears careless while other 12 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 13 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 14 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 15 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 16 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 17 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 18 See section 49B(1) RTA. 19 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. areas appear intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I make an order for the full amount claimed for the repairs of $1,391.50. The amount ordered is proved with the end of tenancy photographs, oral evidence and an invoice from the painter firm. Floor damage
The landlord claims $1,840 compensation for damage to flooring that the landlord says occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided photographs to show some shallow marks on the vinyl flooring where it appears an item has been moved across the floor without being lifted, potentially the fridge /freezer as the damage is near where the fridge /freezer sits in the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Only a quote from Tak Flooring has been provided. The flooring has not been replaced. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs. I understand the quote is for the full replacement of the kitchen area as the landlord was unable to find a match to repair the damaged area.
A new tenancy has commenced, and the landlord has not had the flooring replaced. In this case the landlord also advised while the flooring has not been replaced it will be. The flooring is however still fit for purpose; however, it is now likely that it will age more quickly than reasonably anticipated.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of vinyl flooring in a rental property in the hospitality industry is 10 years. The vinyl flooring in this premises is now approximately 2 years old.
I consider the landlord has not established that compensation for the full replacement cost of the flooring is reasonable.
However, I consider the landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenant’s breach, a degree of loss suffered, and compensation should reflect a contribution towards the eventual repair or replacement cost of the flooring. Having considered all the matters above, I consider $600 is appropriate to reasonably to reflect the tenant’s breach.

Should the landlord be compensated for loss of rent?

The landlord sought compensation for loss of rent of $3,342.95 (which the landlord said was to 25 July 2025.
I have no information about when the subsequent tenant moved into the premises.
The Tribunal is cautious when awarding compensation for loss of rent. It is usually reserved for situations where significant cleaning, repairs, or rubbish removal was required which meant that the premises could not be re-let for a substantial period.
It is appropriate to take a conservative approach to claims for loss of rent because there are many variables that can influence the length of time that it takes to relet premises between tenancies. It is unrealistic for landlords to believe that there won’t be time periods between tenancies for various reasons.
In this case the tenant has removed a dishwasher, which the tenant should have foreseen would take 1-2 weeks to be replaced. Any further delay I consider would not have been foreseeable. I will therefore allow compensation for loss of rent of $1,300 which allows for a usual delay that a landlord should anticipate between tenancies.

Should the applicant be reimbursed the filing fee?

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 20

What orders, if any, should be made with respect to suppression?

The landlord 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 5314459 — net $10,493.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025	$4,628.07	Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025
Cleaning	$632.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$120.75	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$269.11	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$208.00	Lock/key replacement
Compensation - dishwasher removed from premises	$1,316.00	Compensation - dishwasher removed from premises
Repairs: Compensation for wall damage	$1,391.50	Repairs: Compensation for wall damage
Compensation - floor damage	$600.00	Compensation - floor damage
Compensation - loss of rent	$1,300.00	Compensation - loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,493.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,493.93

Claims and awards for application 5314459 — net $10,493.93 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025

Amount: $4,628.07
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5248013 dated 10/06/2025

Cleaning

Amount: $632.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $120.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $269.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $208.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Dawson Developments Otago Ltd $10,493.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 June 2025 under application 5248013
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant was served by email to an updated email address she provided the landlord for correspondence which I have accepted as her email address for service of these proceedings, as the tenant requested the landlord use this address for specific reasons and service to the email address would likely bring the proceedings to the tenant’s attention. 1 The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, including for loss of rent and 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).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations 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.
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 2 , 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 landlord has applied for rent arrears. The tenancy ended on 18 June 2025. 1 See section 91A and 91B of the RTA. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
On 10 June 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for termination, rent arrears and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The incorporation of the previous order into this order reflects the rent arrears claimed in the current application and no further rent arrears is owed by the tenant.
The bond has already been released by the Bond Centre and has off-set part of the rent arrears. Tenant’s obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 3 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 4 c. remove all rubbish, 5 d. return all keys and security devices, 6 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit, 7 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy, 8 and g. replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning considerations
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. 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).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 9 Reasonably clean does not mean 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 8 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 9 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 commercially clean. 10 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 11
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. General cleaning ($632.50), rubbish removal ($120.75) and carpet cleaning ($269.11) was required. The amounts ordered are proved with photographs from the end of the tenancy, oral evidence and invoices.

Is the tenant liable for lock/key replacement?

The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered of $208 is proved with oral evidence, the exit inspection report and an invoice.

Is the tenant liable for the cost to replace the dishwasher?

A dishwasher was damaged during the tenancy and removed by the tenant.
The landlord did not provide photographs of the damage however did provide photographs of the dishwasher space without a dishwasher and it is noted as a chattel in the tenancy agreement.
The IR265 General depreciation rates provides a dishwasher has an estimated useful lifespan of 6.66 years although properly used and maintained I consider a dishwasher might last longer than this. I understand the dishwasher was new in 2023, therefore was approximately 1.5 years old.
I have made a 1/7 deduction to the purchase price of the new dishwasher ($1,386) to reflect betterment and depreciation (total $1,188) and the delivery fee ($128). The amount ordered is $1,316.
The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

10 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 11 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

The Law - Liability for damage

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 12 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. 13 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. 14
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). 15 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). 16 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 17
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. 18 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. 19
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. Wall damage
During the tenancy the tenant caused or permitted another person to cause damages to the walls. Some of the wall damage appears careless while other 12 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 13 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 14 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 15 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 16 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 17 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 18 See section 49B(1) RTA. 19 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. areas appear intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I make an order for the full amount claimed for the repairs of $1,391.50. The amount ordered is proved with the end of tenancy photographs, oral evidence and an invoice from the painter firm. Floor damage
The landlord claims $1,840 compensation for damage to flooring that the landlord says occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided photographs to show some shallow marks on the vinyl flooring where it appears an item has been moved across the floor without being lifted, potentially the fridge /freezer as the damage is near where the fridge /freezer sits in the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Only a quote from Tak Flooring has been provided. The flooring has not been replaced. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs. I understand the quote is for the full replacement of the kitchen area as the landlord was unable to find a match to repair the damaged area.
A new tenancy has commenced, and the landlord has not had the flooring replaced. In this case the landlord also advised while the flooring has not been replaced it will be. The flooring is however still fit for purpose; however, it is now likely that it will age more quickly than reasonably anticipated.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of vinyl flooring in a rental property in the hospitality industry is 10 years. The vinyl flooring in this premises is now approximately 2 years old.
I consider the landlord has not established that compensation for the full replacement cost of the flooring is reasonable.
However, I consider the landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenant’s breach, a degree of loss suffered, and compensation should reflect a contribution towards the eventual repair or replacement cost of the flooring. Having considered all the matters above, I consider $600 is appropriate to reasonably to reflect the tenant’s breach.

Should the landlord be compensated for loss of rent?

The landlord sought compensation for loss of rent of $3,342.95 (which the landlord said was to 25 July 2025.
I have no information about when the subsequent tenant moved into the premises.
The Tribunal is cautious when awarding compensation for loss of rent. It is usually reserved for situations where significant cleaning, repairs, or rubbish removal was required which meant that the premises could not be re-let for a substantial period.
It is appropriate to take a conservative approach to claims for loss of rent because there are many variables that can influence the length of time that it takes to relet premises between tenancies. It is unrealistic for landlords to believe that there won’t be time periods between tenancies for various reasons.
In this case the tenant has removed a dishwasher, which the tenant should have foreseen would take 1-2 weeks to be replaced. Any further delay I consider would not have been foreseeable. I will therefore allow compensation for loss of rent of $1,300 which allows for a usual delay that a landlord should anticipate between tenancies.

Should the applicant be reimbursed the filing fee?

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 20

What orders, if any, should be made with respect to suppression?

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314459 — Property damage at 58D Botha Street, Tainui, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314459 — Property damage at 58D Botha Street, Tainui, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

Is the tenant liable for lock/key replacement?

Is the tenant liable for the cost to replace the dishwasher?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord be compensated for loss of rent?

Should the applicant be reimbursed the filing fee?

What orders, if any, should be made with respect to suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning costs?

Is the tenant liable for lock/key replacement?

Is the tenant liable for the cost to replace the dishwasher?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord be compensated for loss of rent?

Should the applicant be reimbursed the filing fee?

What orders, if any, should be made with respect to suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions