What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322660 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Paul And [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5322660?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $88.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,441.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,016.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322660?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12621663-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322660 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Paul And [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5322660?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $88.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,441.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,016.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322660?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12621663-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Pahau Place, Cracroft, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322660 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322660 — net $4,099.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Completion of tenant repairs and repainting as required, contribution to bathroom repairs	$4,016.28	Repairs: Completion of tenant repairs and repainting as required, contribution to bathroom repairs
Rent arrears as agreed	$1,441.77	Rent arrears as agreed
Carpet Cleaning: by consent	$215.00	Carpet Cleaning: by consent
Lock/key replacement: by consent	$250.00	Lock/key replacement: by consent
Cleaning: Partial	$300.00	Cleaning: Partial
Cleaning: Ceilings and wash and rehang curtains	$88.55	Cleaning: Ceilings and wash and rehang curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,099.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,099.60

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant attended by phone having advised the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing that her child was unwell.

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 26 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenant accepted responsibility for the amount claimed.

The amount is ordered by consent.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.

The landlord provided evidence to confirm that, although the tenant had cleaned the property, it was not left at the required standard.

The tenant provided information after the hearing (with permission) to show that she had engaged professional cleaners to attend to the clean at the end of the tenancy (at a cost of $463.00 for general cleaning). She also provided photographs to show that the property had been cleaned.

Some of the tenant’s photographs are taken during the tenancy and are undated. These are of limited evidential value except to show that the property was generally well kept.

Others are dated the date that the tenancy ended and show that the house seemed to have been cleaned and was left tidy at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord’s photographs are of specific areas that were believed to be below the required standard. These included: the rangehood; the heat pump controls and the devices themselves; electrical sockets; internal windows and window tracks; skirtings; and walls.

The landlord’s photographs clearly show that these parts of the property were not cleaned to a sufficient standard.

The amount order for general cleaning has been reduced to account for the fact that the landlord is also claiming for the costs to repaint some walls due to tenant damage. The landlord did not need to have these walls cleaned knowing that they were to be repainted once the repairs had been completed.

The landlord claimed $531.30 for cleaning. The amount ordered is $300.00 to account for unnecessary wall cleaning as outlined above.

An additional cleaning invoice, of $88.55, covered washing and rehanging net curtains and an attempted clean of the ceilings and two walls in the living room which were allegedly coated with soot.

Photographs provided by both parties show that the net curtains were not rehung at the end of the tenancy. They were left balled up and closed into a partially open window.

The tenant accepted liability for carpet cleaning. She had arranged her own carpet cleaner and provided an invoice to support this. However, she acknowledged that her carpet cleaner had been unable to remove all stains so accepted that further carpet cleaning was required.

This amount, being $215.00, is ordered by consent.

The tenant also acknowledged that she had not returned keys and the amount for the locksmith, being $250.00, is also ordered by consent.

Other amounts ordered for cleaning 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 under 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 under 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) under section 49B(3)(b) 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the acrylic/plastic type shower tray; b. Water damage to bathroom vanity; c. Water damage to laundry wall and skirting; d. Damage to walls (in places partially repaired by tenant).

The landlord gave evidence that the damage to the shower tray was discovered at the end of the tenancy and that they believed it to have been damaged for long enough to cause water damage to the wall and skirting in the adjacent laundry.

The landlord said that an insurance claim was made but was declined as the company considered that the damage likely occurred over time.

The tenant said that the damage to the shower tray had happened very late in the tenancy and that it had not caused the damage to the laundry.

She believed that the shower had not been installed very well and that water had got between the acrylic walls and the bathroom wall earlier in the tenancy as a consequence and may have caused the damage over the length of the tenancy (four years). She did not think she should be liable for the replacement shower or the repair of the damage to the laundry.

She said that the damage to the laundry had occurred over a long period and that she had told the property managers about it at regular inspections.

The landlord agreed that the tenant had mentioned this during at least one inspection but could not recall when.

The damage to the shower tray was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for that damage.

I cannot ascertain whether this damage caused the damage to the laundry but the tenant, the insurer and the photos support the view that this damage likely occurred over time and the landlord recalls the tenant mentioning it at least once at an inspection. I am not satisfied to the required level that this damage was caused by a tenant breach and the tenant cannot be liable for the costs associated with the laundry repairs.

The landlord also claimed that the tenant has damaged the bathroom vanity which has now been replaced as part of the bathroom renovation. The photographs show some water damage to the tops of the vanity cupboards and drawers.

The vanity was in good repair at the beginning of the tenancy. The damage seems to be more than fair wear and tear, but this type of damage would not necessitate replacement of the entire vanity.

The tenant should not be liable to cover the costs of the landlord’s bathroom renovation. Wear and tear and depreciation must be taken into account as well as the tenant’s contribution to the damage.

I consider that $1,000.00 is an appropriate amount to compensate the landlord for the tenant’s damage to the shower tray and the vanity door/drawer fronts.

I take into account all of the factors referred to above as well as the observation that the photographs do not show a qualifying extractor fan in the bathroom. The ingoing inspection refers to a fan, but the corresponding photograph is of the heat lamps which are also shown in the photograph labelled “heater”.

The tenant said that the bathroom had condensation problems and that she had requested a shower dome to help with that.

The landlord has upgraded the bathroom with a full renovation since this tenancy ended. The tenant is not liable to cover the cost of this renovation.

I consider that $1,000.00 is a reasonable contribution to cover the tenant’s damage.

The landlord repainted the entire interior of the tenancy premises at the end of the tenancy and completed earthquake repairs.

Some of this cost was put down to careless damage caused by the tenant during her tenancy ($2,622.85 plus GST).

The ingoing and outgoing photographs confirm that considerable damage was done to walls and doors during the tenancy. The tenant had made a start in repairing some of this damage but considered that the level of damage was due to the poor quality of the initial painting done. No evidence was provided to support this view.

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

The landlord also repainted all other walls at its own cost and is not claiming that cost from the tenant.

Some ceilings and walls were coated in soot allegedly from the burning of incense. The tenant accepted that she had burned incense in the house but did not accept liability for this cost.

The damage occurred during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.

The amount ordered for painting, being $2,622.85 plus GST (confirmed by the related invoice provided by the landlord), is 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.

As Braziers Limited As Agent For Paul and [The landlord/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322660 — net $4,099.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Completion of tenant repairs and repainting as required, contribution to bathroom repairs	$4,016.28	Repairs: Completion of tenant repairs and repainting as required, contribution to bathroom repairs
Rent arrears as agreed	$1,441.77	Rent arrears as agreed
Carpet Cleaning: by consent	$215.00	Carpet Cleaning: by consent
Lock/key replacement: by consent	$250.00	Lock/key replacement: by consent
Cleaning: Partial	$300.00	Cleaning: Partial
Cleaning: Ceilings and wash and rehang curtains	$88.55	Cleaning: Ceilings and wash and rehang curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,099.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,099.60