What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319765 about?

The tribunal order states: Louise Paget must pay [The landlord/s] $4,737.03 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5319765?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $572.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,435.71 awarded to landlord; Dining And Kitchen Flooring: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Door Latch: $26.32 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: and other prope…: $284.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Basket, Paddle: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Rubber Mats X 4: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $216.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319765?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319765?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12660965-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319765 about?

The tribunal order states: Louise Paget must pay [The landlord/s] $4,737.03 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5319765?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $572.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,435.71 awarded to landlord; Dining And Kitchen Flooring: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Door Latch: $26.32 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: and other prope…: $284.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Basket, Paddle: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Rubber Mats X 4: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $216.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319765?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319765?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12660965-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

449 State Highway 30, Lake Rotoma, Rotorua 3074 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319765 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319765 — net $4,737.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 August 2025	$2,435.71	Rent arrears to 11 August 2025
Replace furnishings: and other property	$284.00	Replace furnishings: and other property
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: hire and labour	$125.00	Carpet Cleaning: hire and labour
Rubbish removal	$216.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$572.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Dining and kitchen flooring	$2,200.00	Repairs: Dining and kitchen flooring
Replace furnishings: rubber mats x 4	$35.00	Replace furnishings: rubber mats x 4
Replace furnishings: basket, paddle	$40.00	Replace furnishings: basket, paddle
Lawns and Garden work repair damage lawn	$800.00	Lawns and Garden work repair damage lawn
Repairs: door latch	$26.32	Repairs: door latch
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,737.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,737.03

This was a video hearing. [The landlord’s representative] appeared on behalf of the landlords she confirmed that she is one of the owners of the premises. The tenant did not appear by video link and was called on the phone number provided but was unable to be contacted. The hearing continued in their absence.

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Only three payments of rent were made.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. That carpets in the back rooms required cleaning and evidence of a dog being fed on the carpet and spending time in the room was produced.

The floors in the bathroom laundry area required cleaning as well as the oven.

There was rubbish left in baskets and pot plants outside the premises and old foam matting and furniture. As part of the rubbish removal claim the landlord included removal of the tenant’s large old sofa and some smaller items. Photographs were provided in support of this.

The tenant did not return the keys.

The premises came semi furnished and following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: •a wooden display of the word ‘dream’ •a blue basket •a coir mat •red kayak •a glass bowl •two buckets •a cushion

There were no receipts for the replacement of these items. It was established that they were present at the start of the tenancy and a nominal award is made.

There is no evidence that the towels or firewood or a box of bulbs were present at the start of the tenancy. No award is made for these items.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.

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) RTA.

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) RTA. 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) RTA.

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) RTA. 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.The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A door latch was broken. b) Two rubber mats and two rubber backed mats were destroyed. c) A kayak paddle and wooden basket were broken. d) The lawn beside the house driveway, gate area and around the back was damaged. e) The kitchen and dining room flooring, and sub floor was damaged by water.

Photographs were provided in support of these claims and an invoice for the latch.

These damages were established, and nominal awards are made for the mats, paddle and basket.

The lawns had been reduced to large muddy areas where it appears vehicles had been stuck and the rubber mats used to for vehicle traction in some areas.

There was a driveway and carport provided and pre tenancy photographs show an undamaged lawn. I find that this damage is more than fair wear and tear and a nominal award is made.

The amounts ordered are nominal because the landlord has not completed the repairs or replaced items taken or damaged. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage or taken items for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.

The landlord provided photographs of an undamaged floor at the start of the tenancy and bulging flooring in the kitchen dining room when the tenancy ended. Photographs of the flooring, once lifted, were provided supporting the claim that the boards also required replacing.

The landlord was unable to use insurance to cover this repair because they could not provide evidence of an incident. The landlord said they discovered the damage after the tenant moved out and do not know how it happened. This has been repaired and a breakdown of costs provided.

I find that this is careless damage by the tenant and because the damage 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) RTA.

The claim for the damage to the wood cabinet is dismissed as there was not enough evidence provided and the bed base case claim was withdrawn by the landlord.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because [The landlord’s representative] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested in the application form.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319765 — net $4,737.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 August 2025	$2,435.71	Rent arrears to 11 August 2025
Replace furnishings: and other property	$284.00	Replace furnishings: and other property
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: hire and labour	$125.00	Carpet Cleaning: hire and labour
Rubbish removal	$216.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$572.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Dining and kitchen flooring	$2,200.00	Repairs: Dining and kitchen flooring
Replace furnishings: rubber mats x 4	$35.00	Replace furnishings: rubber mats x 4
Replace furnishings: basket, paddle	$40.00	Replace furnishings: basket, paddle
Lawns and Garden work repair damage lawn	$800.00	Lawns and Garden work repair damage lawn
Repairs: door latch	$26.32	Repairs: door latch
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,737.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,737.03

Order

Louise Paget must pay [The landlord/s] $4,737.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This was a video hearing. [The landlord’s representative] appeared on behalf of the landlords she confirmed that she is one of the owners of the premises. The tenant did not appear by video link and was called on the phone number provided but was unable to be contacted. The hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Only three payments of rent were made.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. That carpets in the back rooms required cleaning and evidence of a dog being fed on the carpet and spending time in the room was produced.
The floors in the bathroom laundry area required cleaning as well as the oven.
There was rubbish left in baskets and pot plants outside the premises and old foam matting and furniture. As part of the rubbish removal claim the landlord included removal of the tenant’s large old sofa and some smaller items. Photographs were provided in support of this.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The premises came semi furnished and following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: •a wooden display of the word ‘dream’ •a blue basket •a coir mat •red kayak •a glass bowl •two buckets •a cushion
There were no receipts for the replacement of these items. It was established that they were present at the start of the tenancy and a nominal award is made.
There is no evidence that the towels or firewood or a box of bulbs were present at the start of the tenancy. No award is made for these items.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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.The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A door latch was broken. b) Two rubber mats and two rubber backed mats were destroyed. c) A kayak paddle and wooden basket were broken. d) The lawn beside the house driveway, gate area and around the back was damaged. e) The kitchen and dining room flooring, and sub floor was damaged by water.
Photographs were provided in support of these claims and an invoice for the latch.
These damages were established, and nominal awards are made for the mats, paddle and basket.
The lawns had been reduced to large muddy areas where it appears vehicles had been stuck and the rubber mats used to for vehicle traction in some areas.
There was a driveway and carport provided and pre tenancy photographs show an undamaged lawn. I find that this damage is more than fair wear and tear and a nominal award is made.
The amounts ordered are nominal because the landlord has not completed the repairs or replaced items taken or damaged. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage or taken items for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
The landlord provided photographs of an undamaged floor at the start of the tenancy and bulging flooring in the kitchen dining room when the tenancy ended. Photographs of the flooring, once lifted, were provided supporting the claim that the boards also required replacing.
The landlord was unable to use insurance to cover this repair because they could not provide evidence of an incident. The landlord said they discovered the damage after the tenant moved out and do not know how it happened. This has been repaired and a breakdown of costs provided.
I find that this is careless damage by the tenant and because the damage 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) RTA.
The claim for the damage to the wood cabinet is dismissed as there was not enough evidence provided and the bed base case claim was withdrawn by the landlord.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The landlord’s representative] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested in the application form.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319765 — Property damage at 449 State Highway 30, Lake Rotoma, Rotorua 3074

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319765 — Property damage at 449 State Highway 30, Lake Rotoma, Rotorua 3074

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions