What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320020 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Wairarapa Property Letting Services Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5320020?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320020?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775257-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320020 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Wairarapa Property Letting Services Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5320020?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320020?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775257-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 South Road, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5320020 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Wairarapa Property Letting Services Limited $3,518.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: ItemAmount Rent arrears$4352.87 Garage remote replacement$180.00 Lightbulb$6.48 Key replacement$11.00 Smoke alarm batteries$11.00 Extension cord$14.69 Wall repainting (materials)$269.73 External wall repair cost (materials)$84.00 Window reglazing$140.91 Labour$340.00 Filing fee$28.00 Minus bond$-1920.00 Total order$3518.68
All other claims are dismissed or withdrawn.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has ended and the landlord is now seeking rent arrears and compensation for damage/losses at the end of the tenancy.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement has been provided. The tenancy commenced on 11 February 2023, and ended following a termination notice from the landlord.
Possession of the property returned to the landlord on 30 August 2025.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Wall damage in shed c. Missing garage door remote d. Lightbulb e. Key replacement f. Batteries for smoke alarm g. Curtain hook replacement h. Extension cord compensation i. Curtain nets j. Drapes / curtains k. Sliding door lock l. Bedroom repainting m. Wall hole repair n. Glass repair.

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 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the landlords claims in turn. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord states the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy are $4,352.87
Mr Binns has not disputed the accounting in the rent ledger.
However, Mr Binns disputes that he should pay the full sum because Mr Binns says that the property manager at one point, said if he caught up with the arrears, he did not need to pay any further rental. Analysis
On balance, I find there is insufficient evidence to support Mr Binns claim that rent payments were waived. Certainly there is no documentary records supporting such a waiver, and it would be an extraordinary thing for a property manager to say.
I find that the landlord’s rent should be accepted, and I find this claim must be ordered in full.
This amount is established and is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Garage wall hole
The landlords position is that the tenant cut a hole in the wall in the garage. The landlord points to the pre-let tenancy inspection which does not record any holes in the garage wall.
In response the tenant says that he did remove that section of board from the garage, to use to cover a broken window, but when it did not fit, he nailed it back in place in the garage. The tenant showed the Tribunal a video taken while he still had possession of the premises, which showed the gib board patch (which the landlord says it installed) in place at the time. Analysis
On balance, I am not persuaded that the tenant has returned the premises materially different to how he rented it. The gib board shown in the landlord’s picture appears old. The tenant showed me a video taken while he was still in a position of the premises, which showed the same jib patch on the wall at the time. I must conclude that the landlord has not established this claim. Claim 3 – Garage door remote
The landlord says that when the premises were returned, the garage door remote was not returned. The replacement cost is $180.00. The landlord refers to the pre-inspection check list which confirms a remote was provided.
The tenant says that he does not know about the garage door remote. Analysis
I am satisfied that a garage door remote was provided at the start of the tenancy. As the landlord notes, this is confirmed on the tenancy agreement. I accept it was not returned. This claim is established. Claim 4 - Lightbulbs
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy 2 lightbulbs were missing, and the replacement cost was $12.99.
Mr Binns says that he has no idea what bulbs were missing, it could be that he had replaced cheap bulbs with LED bulbs that he took with him, he is not sure. Mr Binns also referred to a video showing one of the lights with a broken light fitting. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises as it was found. If they were working lightbulbs, then they must be returned that way. I accept however that one of the light fittings was broken, which may reasonably explain why one of the bulbs was missing. I therefore award half of the landlord’s claim, $6.48. Claim 5 – Key replacement
The landlord states that the keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy, so claims $11.00 for key recutting.
The tenant was not entirely certain of the situation with keys but thinks he still has one or two with him in his vehicle. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
The evidence is that the tenant did not return all keys to the landlord, so must be responsible for the key replacement. Claim 6 – Smoke alarm batteries
The landlord claims $11.00 for replacement smoke alarm batteries. The landlord referred to a photograph from the end of the tenancy where the smoke alarms were sitting in a lampshade.
The tenant is not sure what happened to the batteries. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulations) Regulations 2016 requires that tenants replace smoke alarm batteries when they become flat. I accept that is the case here, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. Claim 7 – Curtain hooks
The landlord claims costs of $12.00 for replacing curtain hooks which were broken at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant states that this is a case of fair wear and tear.
Following discussion, the landlord withdrew this application. Claim 8 – Extension cord
The landlord claims $14.69 to replace the extension cord which supplied the power for the garage door opener.
Mr Binns questions whether there was a cord there in the first place, and questions whether this was even supplied at the start of the tenancy. Mr Binns questions if the landlord could prove this claim. Analysis
I find this claim is established. The tenancy agreement records that the garage included a garage opener, and it could be assumed, therefore, that it worked. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 9 – Curtain nets
The landlord withdrew this claim. Claim 10 – Curtain replacement
The landlord withdrew this claim. Claim 11 – Sliding door lock
The landlord has claimed $107.30 to replace a broken door handle.
Following discussion the landlord has withdrawn this claim. Claim 12 – Bedroom repainting
The landlord claims costs for repainting the bedroom wall where marks were left on the wall, including damage from tape or similar pulling off paint. The landlord is not sure when it was last painted, but notes that marks were not noted on the pre-let inspection report. The landlord claims $262.73 in materials (labour is claimed below).
Mr Binns disputes that he caused this damage, stating the walls were returned how the tenancy was rented. The tenant showed a video where he had part painted one wall but ran out of paint, and where he had repaired a hole in a wall under a window (the repair was obvious on the video). Analysis
The best evidence I have available as to the state of the tenancy at the commencement of the tenancy, was the pre-tenancy inspection report. The report is reasonably detailed with recording the state of the tenancy, but there is no reference to any marks or damage on the walls.
The purpose of taking the pre-tenancy inspection is to address any issues that arise at the end of the tenancy, should there be a dispute as to the state of the premises. In that inspection report there is no evidence of damage to the walls, so that points to it being more likely than not that the damage occur occurred during the tenancy.
The damage shown on the landlord’s photographs is beyond fair wear and tear, and would fall into the careless damage category. That means the tenant is liable for the repair cost, up to the level of the insurance excess.
This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 13 – Wall hole repair
The landlord states there was a hole to the exterior of the house. The landlord is claiming $84.00 for the repair.
Mr Binns states that his ex-girlfriend put the hole in the wall. He did not witness it. On the evening she turned up, and “flipped out”. When she put the hole in the house, there was an argument and she screamed down the neighbourhood, and the police were called. Mr Binns said he knew she was present as she was knocking on the door to get his attention. Analysis
This damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. There is no dispute from Mr Binns about that. But Mr Binns’ position is that he did not cause the damage; it was caused by his ex-girlfriend.
The RTA confirms that tenants are liable for damage caused by somebody on the premises with the tenants consent (section 41).
However, section 41(2) states: Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
In this case, the evidence favours a conclusion that the tenant was aware that his ex-girlfriend was on the premises, and it was only after the damage occurred that he reasonably acted to have her removed by contacting the police. That means, that the tenant is liable for the repair cost. Claim 14 - Reglazing
The landlord claims reglazing costs of $281.82. The landlord believes that this was the garage window and another window.
The tenant said that the shed glass was not particularly secure, and would come out easily, in fact that is how he got into the shed when he locked himself out. The tenant said he came home one day and found the glass smashed on the ground. The tenant further states that the glass in one window cracked when he screwed the window catch to tighten it up, which cracked the window. The tenant showed a video which showed a crack which emanated from the window handle. The tenant notes that he as previously worked in an aluminium joinery business, so was confident in making this repair. Analysis
I accept that the evidence is that two windows were broken. One to the shed, and one to an interior window. Both windows were broken during the tenancy, and would not be fair wear and tear.
I find the tenant must be liable for the repair to the garage window. I am not persuaded that the window simply fell out, that would seem less likely than the window being broken during the tenancy.
In relation to the broken window in the house, the tenant showed me a video which had a crack emanating from the window handle. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he has worked in a window manufacturing business, and so it would not be unreasonable to expect him to have the skills to tighten the window latch, which was loose. The screw cracked the glass, but because I do not consider the tenant acted carelessly or intentionally, he is not liable for that repair. I therefore order the tenant to pay half of the window reglazing claim. That is $140.91. Claim 15 - Labour
The landlord has claimed 22 hours labour at $40.00 per hour to undertake the above work. The landlord recognises that some claims have been withdrawn from fair wear and tear, and except that the reasonable approach would be for me to determine what a round figure should be for this claim.
The tenant did not oppose that approach, but has noted above has denied liability for some of the claims, and I have addressed those above. Analysis
Taking into consideration the claims ordered above, I have concluded that a reasonable approach would be to order the tenant to pay labour costs for one day. Applying the landlord’s rate, and multiplying that by 8.5, I order labour cost of $340.00.

BOND

The landlord Trent ledger indicates that a bond of $1920 was received. I have contacted the Bond Centre which has confirmed that there is no record of that bond being lodged. That means, the bond is likely to remain in the landlord’s account, so I have deducted that some from the amount ordered.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320020 — Rent arrears at 106 South Road, Solway, Masterton 5810

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320020 — Rent arrears at 106 South Road, Solway, Masterton 5810

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

BOND

FILING FEE

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

BOND

FILING FEE

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.