Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5316142 — Property damage at 8 Reeves Street, Cheviot, Cheviot 7310
Published 14 May 2026 · Application 5316142
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Cheviot
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Merrett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $15,493.94
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $15,493.94
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $1,483.11 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $800.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $125.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Replace oven trays | $119.60 | Replace oven trays | |
| Replace heat pump remote | $77.00 | Replace heat pump remote | |
| Missing or damaged chattels | $1,050.00 | Missing or damaged chattels | |
| Replace missing pantry light bulb | $20.48 | Replace missing pantry light bulb | |
| Repair/replace doors & handles, shelves, drawer runners, garage door | $5,000.00 | Repair/replace doors & handles, shelves, drawer runners, garage door | |
| Exterior door repair - insurance excess | $450.00 | Exterior door repair - insurance excess | |
| Replace carpets - insurance excess x 4 | $1,800.00 | Replace carpets - insurance excess x 4 | |
| Repair walls | $3,500.00 | Repair walls | |
| Replace window handles | $35.76 | Replace window handles | |
| Clean graffiti from brickwork | $24.99 | Clean graffiti from brickwork | |
| Replace curtains | $530.00 | Replace curtains | |
| Compensation - loss of rent | $450.00 | Compensation - loss of rent | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $15,493.94 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $15,493.94 |
Claims and awards for application 5316142 — net $15,493.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $1,483.11
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work
- Amount
- $125.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and Garden work
Replace oven trays
- Amount
- $119.60
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace oven trays
Replace heat pump remote
- Amount
- $77.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace heat pump remote
Missing or damaged chattels
- Amount
- $1,050.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Missing or damaged chattels
Replace missing pantry light bulb
- Amount
- $20.48
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace missing pantry light bulb
Repair/replace doors & handles, shelves, drawer runners, garage door
- Amount
- $5,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repair/replace doors & handles, shelves, drawer runners, garage door
Exterior door repair - insurance excess
- Amount
- $450.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exterior door repair - insurance excess
Replace carpets - insurance excess x 4
- Amount
- $1,800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace carpets - insurance excess x 4
Repair walls
- Amount
- $3,500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repair walls
Replace window handles
- Amount
- $35.76
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace window handles
Clean graffiti from brickwork
- Amount
- $24.99
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Clean graffiti from brickwork
Replace curtains
- Amount
- $530.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace curtains
Compensation - loss of rent
- Amount
- $450.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation - loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $15,493.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $15,493.94
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Samantha Louise Ayers and Joshua Brown must pay Troy Sydney Pyper and Ripeka Makurata Ferris $15,493.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing.
- The landlords have applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- I am satisfied that the landlords have established that the premises, including the carpets, were not left reasonably clean, the lawns and gardens were not left reasonably tidy, not all chattels provided for the tenants benefit were returned, and not all rubbish was removed as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The tenants said that they had wanted to go back after the tenancy ended to complete the cleaning and rubbish removal work. However, the obligation on a tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. If a tenant fails to do so there is no obligation on a landlord to allow the tenants to return to the premises after the tenancy ends to enable them to complete any additional work.
- The amount claimed for cleaning the premises includes three hours of cleaning work completed by the landlords themselves. An hourly rate of $25.00 is considered reasonable when a landlord does work on the premises themselves. The amount claimed for their time to do so is therefore reduced. The amount claimed for professional cleaning is reduced because it includes cleaning of the outside of the windows. The cleaning of the outside of the house (including windows) is considered to be a maintenance matter and therefore not the responsibility of the tenants.
- The amount claimed to remove rubbish is also reduced. The hourly rate claimed ($50.00) for the landlords’ time is reduced to $25.00 for the reasons set out above. In addition, the amount claimed includes the cost to dispose of goods belonging to the tenants and left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. However, the landlords did not attempt to contact the tenants to arrange a time for them to collect the goods before disposing of them (as required by section 62 of the Act). I therefore do not consider that the tenants should be liable for the unlawful disposal of these goods. The landlords also accept that the rubbish disposed of included an old oven belonging to the landlords.
- The amount claimed to tidy the lawns and gardens is reduced again to account for the reduction in the hourly rate for the landlords’ time to complete the work.
- The tenants accept the cost to replace the missing heat pump remote and the cost to replace two missing window latches. I am also satisfied that the landlords have established that the oven racks and pantry light bulb were also missing. The amounts claimed for these items have been established by the production of receipts.
- There was no dispute that a dining table and five chairs, and a fridge freezer belonging to the landlords were missing at the end of the tenancy. An agreement was made between the landlords and one of the tenants, Mr Brown, to pay the sum of $900.00 to compensate the landlords for these missing items. Mr Brown paid $100.00 pursuant to the agreement and the landlords claim the balance.
- The tenants now dispute the agreement saying that Mr Brown was coerced or “blackmailed” into agreeing to it. He said that he felt that if he didn’t agree the landlords would ‘kick them out’ of the premises.
- However, the text messages between Mr Brown and Mr Pyper regarding the agreement do not support the tenants claim of coercion or blackmail. Mr Brown agreed to Mr Pyper’s request for compensation of $900 for the items and he told Mr Pyper that he will make weekly payments of $100 for the debt. There were no threats by Mr Pyper in the texts and no suggestion that their tenancy would be at risk if Mr Brown did not agree. I therefore find the tenants liable for the balance due under the agreement ($800.00).
Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?
- To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they or others at the premises with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: 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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
- The following damage occurred during the tenancy: • Seven broken doors and missing door handles • Damaged kitchen shelves and drawer runners • Garage door rail broken off and door required straightening • Holes, dents, and child’s drawings/scribbles on walls • Curtains in two bedrooms and living room heavily soiled (food stains and drawings/pen marks) • Kingsize bed heavily stained • Three seater sofa and 2 recliner chairs stained and ripped • Graffiti on brickwork • Carpet damaged by stains that could not be removed by cleaning
- The tenants accept the claim for all doors and handles (including the garage door), the damaged drawer runners, the damage to the living room curtain, and the claim to remove graffiti from brickwork. They also accept that their children wrote/scribbled on the walls in the master bedroom, dining room and garage but deny that all walls were damaged as claimed by the landlords.
- However, I am satisfied that the landlords have established that there were child’s scribbles in all rooms, although probably not on every wall and, with the exception of a hole in the hall wall, I am satisfied that the holes and other damage to walls throughout the premises (unsuccessful attempts had been made to repair some) occurred during the tenancy. I dismiss the claim for the hole in the hall wall because I accept the tenants’ evidence that there was a hole there at the tenancy commencement that had been inadequately plastered and painted and the plaster fell out during the tenancy.
- The damage that occurred during the tenancy is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. I therefore find them liable for all the damage claimed (other than the hall wall damage).
- The landlords have insurance that covered the damage to the carpets in four rooms and they claim the excess payable for that claim. The amount paid by the landlords’ insurer to replace the carpets was $11,914.00 (although it appears that this may have also included replacement of vinyl flooring), less the excess payable of $550 for each of the four rooms (total $2,200.00). I consider that the amount of the excess payable is fair compensation for the damage to the carpets after taking into account depreciation and betterment. The carpets were new in October 2020 and carpets are expected to last approximately 12 years before requiring replacement.
- However, the tenancy agreement records that the excess payable under the landlords’ insurance policy for both dwelling and contents claims is $450.00 and therefore is no evidence that the landlords advised the tenants in writing that the excess payable had increased. I therefore find the tenants liable for the sum of $1,800.00 (four excesses at $450) for the damage to the carpets.
- The cost to replace the seven doors and handles, repair the garage door and rail, the drawer runners, and kitchen shelves has been established by the production of invoices. However, the invoice for the work includes repairs to the exterior door but that was covered by the landlords’ insurer and is therefore limited to the excess payable for that damage ($450.00). The amount claimed on the invoices ($6,079.88) has therefore been reduced to account for this.
- The landlord claims the sum of $1,725.00 to repair the walls (an invoice was provided) and $13,275.00 (including materials) to paint the entire inside of the premises, including ceilings and woodwork. Mr Pyper did the painting work himself and claims his time (224 hours) at $50 per hour plus $20.00 per day for 28 days travel time to complete the work.
- The amount claimed has been reduced because as mentioned above $25.00 per hour is considered reasonable to compensate a landlord who does work on the premises themselves. It has also been reduced because considerably more painting work was completed than that required to remedy damage caused by the tenants. Finally, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. The walls were last painted in October 2020 and walls are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring repainting.
- Taking into account all the circumstances I consider the sum of $3,500.00 reasonable to compensate the landlords for the damage to the walls.
- The landlords claim the sum of $864.96 to purchase curtains to replace those damaged during the tenancy plus Mr Pyper’s time to hang them. The total amount claimed is $1,064.96 (after reducing the hourly rate for Mr Pyper’s time to $25 per hour). Depreciation and betterment must again be taken into account when assessing compensation for the damaged curtains. The curtains were new in October 2020, thus they were approximately five years old. Curtains are expected to last approximately 10 years. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed by 50%.
- The damaged bed and lounge chairs/sofa were covered by insurance and the landlords were required to pay two excesses for the damage. The bed was approximately 15 years old, and the lounge chairs and sofa were approximately 20 years old. Thus, the bed was likely near or at the end of its useful life and the lounge sofa and chairs were also likely near requiring replacement. The landlords provided evidence of the replacement cost of the bed and the lounge suite but did not provide any evidence to support the second-hand value of a 15 year old bed and a 10 year old suite. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider $150.00 reasonable to compensate the landlords for the damaged bed and $200.00 for the lounge suite. The landlords’ other claims
- The landlords claim the costs to prepare their claim (photocopying, taking and printing photographs and the like); rent (8 weeks from 22 July 2024 until 13 September 2024 until Mr Pyper was able to move back into the premises); the landlords’ time to organise tradespeople and the insurance claim ($300.00); and interest/ general damages ($9,105.44).
- Section 102(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has no power to award costs except in the limited circumstances in section 102. None of those circumstances apply here. The claim for costs to prepare the claim is therefore dismissed.
- However, the Tribunal may award payment of the Tribunal application fee if the applicant has been partially successful in their claim: section 102(4) of the Act. The landlords have been mostly successful, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the application fee. Rent
- There is an expectation that there will be some 'down time' between tenancies to complete necessary work/maintenance on the premises and to bring it to a standard a landlord might like for a new tenant, or for the owner to move in as here, and this is generally considered to be an ordinary business expense.
- However, given the extent of the damage and the cleaning required I consider that there was a longer period of down time than would be considered normal. However, I do not consider that 8 weeks downtime is reasonable here. There was considerable additional interior work completed (particularly painting work over a 28-day period) that was not required due to tenant damage. I also accept that the work likely took longer because Mr Pyper was completing some of the work himself and due to delays in having the insurance claim processed. These are not costs for which the tenants should be liable.
- In the circumstances I consider the equivalent of one weeks rent reasonable to compensate the landlords for the additional downtime. Time to organise tradespeople and insurance claim
- A landlord’s time to arrange contractors or insurance claims is also considered to be an ordinary business cost, not one for which a tenant should be liable. This claim is therefore dismissed. Interest/general damages
- The landlords claim interest on the amounts they had to pay to contractors for repairs and the like. Mr Pyper said that they also suffered stress and inconvenience due to the condition the premises were left by the tenants.
- Even if it was considered reasonable in the circumstances for interest to be payable for sums paid to contractors (I note that the landlords received over $18,000 (more than the amount for which the tenants have been found liable) from their insurer in settlement of claims in relation to the tenancy), the landlords did not provide evidence of when payments were made to contractors to enable interest to be calculated.
- The claim for interest is therefore dismissed.
- The landlords claim for compensation for stress and inconvenience is also dismissed.
- There is a line of cases which have held that general damages (for stress, inconvenience and the like) are not available for breach of contract unless the contract is one intended to provide to the party claiming the compensation pleasure or enjoyment or the relief of suffering.
- The contract here (the tenancy agreement) is not a contract to provide pleasure or enjoyment for the landlord and is not one that is intended to provide relief from suffering. I therefore find that the threshold for an award of general damages has not been met and the claim is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102, s102(1), s102(4), s26, s33, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(3), s62
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5316142?
The tribunal order states: Samantha Louise Ayers and Joshua Brown must pay Troy Sydney Pyper and
How much money was awarded in case 5316142?
Cleaning: $1,483.11 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $24.99 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $20.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $530.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven Trays: $119.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Window Handles: $35.76 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316142?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316142?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13538462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.