What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325952?

The tribunal order states: Brian Davis and Nicola Davis must pay Diane Cherie $2,192.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5325952?

Property Damage: $2,864.32 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Swimming Pool: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,028.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325952?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13231714-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325952?

The tribunal order states: Brian Davis and Nicola Davis must pay Diane Cherie $2,192.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5325952?

Property Damage: $2,864.32 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Swimming Pool: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,028.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325952?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13231714-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

867 Springfield Road, Springfield, RD 8, Whangarei 0178 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325952 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325952 — net $2,192.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: Missing or damaged chattels (as detailed below	$2,864.32	Missing or damaged chattels (as detailed below
Compensation: swimming pool	$300.00	swimming pool
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,028.22	228. On that basis I will award compensation of $300.00 for the tenants failing to return the pool to the landlord in a reasonably clean condition at the end o…
Loss of rent	$1,000.00	Loss of rent
Net award	$2,192.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,192.54

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325952 — net $2,192.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: Missing or damaged chattels (as detailed below	$2,864.32	Missing or damaged chattels (as detailed below
Compensation: swimming pool	$300.00	swimming pool
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,028.22	228. On that basis I will award compensation of $300.00 for the tenants failing to return the pool to the landlord in a reasonably clean condition at the end o…
Loss of rent	$1,000.00	Loss of rent
Net award	$2,192.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,192.54

Order

Brian Davis and Nicola Davis must pay Diane Cherie $2,192.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5698667-001) to Diane Cherie immediately.

Reasons

Background

The property is located in Springfield.
Ms Cherrie has owned the property since 2000. She operated a dog ‘homestay’ boarding kennel there. Mr & Mrs Davis’ tenancy began on 19 September 2023. They also operated a dog boarding kennel business from the premises, and a dog breeding business.
Ms Cherrie left her belongings in the property on the understanding that the tenants would store what they did not want to use. The parties disagree about what the storage arrangement was, as discussed in more detail below.
The parties entered into a written tenancy agreement. The rent was $1500 plus GST per week.
The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. Mrs Davis returned to the property in the week after 7 July to carry out cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs. Her last day at the property was 15 July.
The tenants’ application sought a refund of the bond. They later amended the application to include a claim for refund of overpaid rent, on the grounds that the landlord was not entitled to charge GST on residential premises.
The landlord’s application sought compensation for damaged or missing chattels, cleaning and rubbish removal, repairs, and loss of rent.
The parties participated in two Case Conference hearings.
The substantive hearing took place in Whangarei on 4 March 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Reeves (MWIS Lawyers) assisted Mr & Mrs Davis. Mr Easton (WRMK Lawyers) assisted Ms Cherrie. Tenant application
The amount owed to the landlord exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord in full.
At the hearing, the tenants withdrew their claim for reimbursement of overpaid rent (GST). Landlord application Introduction
The day before the hearing, Mr Easton submitted a slightly revised / re- formulated version of Ms Cherrie’s claim. Some of the costs previously claimed were withdrawn. There were a few minor additions. The claim was presented in a clear and logical format.
Mr Reeves had limited time to review this large document and compare it with the previous material. At the hearing Mr Reeves agreed to proceed, reasonably acknowledging that the advantage of clarity offset the potential disadvantage of there being new material that he had not had time to review and prepare a response to.
The revised document lists 50 claims totalling $42,056.32. Where I refer to a claim number in this decision, it relates to the numbering in the revised claim document. Claims for damaged or missing chattels Introduction
As noted above, at the start of this tenancy it was understood that Ms Cherrie would leave her household belongings in the premises. Mr & Mrs Davis would put into storage whatever they did not want to use.
Ms Cherrie said that they agreed that Mr & Mrs Davis would put her belongings into storage at their commercial storage facility in Bream Bay. She recalled discussing with Mr & Mrs Davis whether they had enough spare room there, and Mr & Mrs Davis confirmed that they did.
At the start of the tenancy, she paid Mr & Mrs Davis $1,000.00 in cash as a contribution to the cost of packaging and transporting her belongings to the storage facility.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that there was no such agreement. They agreed that there was some discussion about the possibility of storing Mrs Cherrie’s belongings in the storage facility that their business uses, but there was no agreement about that.
Instead, they stored Mrs Cherrie’s belongings in the barn at the property.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they put the belongings into an enclosed ‘middle room’ in the barn. The area seemed to be dry and suitable for storage.
There was no chattels list in the agreement.
Tenants are liable for damage to the premises, beyond fair wear and tear, that occurs during the tenancy. Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. Toilet cistern and toilet seat
The claim seeks the cost of replacing the toilet seat and cistern in one of the three bathrooms on the grounds that it was “irreparably stained”.
Mrs Cherrie provided a photograph of the toilet, taken at the end of the tenancy.
Mrs Cherrie said that this toilet was replaced approximately five years before the start of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that the toilet seat and cistern were already in a deteriorated condition at the beginning of their tenancy. They said that there is no ventilation in this bathroom which tends to encourage mould growth.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean, and where there is staining to the extent that the chattel cannot be cleaned and must be replaced (such as carpet), the tenant is liable for the replacement cost (less depreciation where appropriate).
As discussed in more detail below, there is evidence that the premises were, in some respects, not left reasonably clean and tidy, and in particular this bathroom seems to have been overlooked.
However, the difficulty for the landlord is that there is no evidence of the condition of the toilet seat and cistern at the beginning of the tenancy. Without that information, it is not possible to determine what extent of staining occurred during this tenancy.
Therefore I must find that the landlord has not met the burden of proof, and this part of the claim is dismissed. Mobility seat
The claim seeks the cost of replacing a mobility seat. Mrs Cherrie said that she purchased the seat approximately five years before the start of the tenancy. It was located in the cow shed.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they did not see this item during their tenancy.
There is no proof of purchase or evidence to show that this item was in the property at the start of the tenancy.
The claim is not proven. Kauri wine rack
The kauri wine rack was in the kitchen / dining area of the house.
Mrs Cherrie said that it was damaged by rats and by dog urine during the tenancy. Mrs Cherrie noted that the floor just in front of where the rack was situated was also damaged with dog urine.
Mrs Cherrie provided a photograph of the wine rack from the end of the tenancy. The photograph is relatively “close-up”, showing the bottom part of the front of the wine rack.
The photograph shows that the timber is aged and fading, but from this evidence alone it is not possible to identify the damage that Mrs Cherrie alleges.
The claim is not proven. Kettle
Mrs Cherrie left a kettle in the kitchen. It was missing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that the kettle stopped working so they disposed of it and used their own.
Ms Cherrie said that the kettle was purchased about two years before the start of the tenancy.
I accept the tenants’ oral evidence that the kettle stopped working and they disposed of it.
This is not an instance of a tenant carelessly or intentionally damaging or losing the landlord’s chattels.
Therefore, this part of the claim is dismissed. Microwave
Ms Cherrie said that there was a microwave in the kitchen, located on a shelf designed to accommodate the microwave. There was also a small benchtop oven in the kitchen at the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy her microwave was missing, and the benchtop oven was in the space where the microwave had been.
Mrs Davis said that she did not recall seeing the landlord’s microwave. She said that they had their own microwave, which they took with them at the end of the tenancy.
Again, although it seems reasonable to think that Mrs Cherrie owned a microwave and that it would have been situated in the kitchen at the beginning of the tenancy, this is denied by the tenants, and I have no other evidence about this. In the absence of evidence such as a chattels list or photograph, my finding is that the landlord has not met the burden of proof.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Washing machine
The front-loading washing machine had brown staining / discolouration inside the door.
The premises were re-let in September 2025.
Mrs Cherrie said that her new tenants told her that the washing machine displayed a fault when they used it. Mrs Cherrie involved a technician who told her that the fault was due to damage to the drum. The machine may have been operated out of balance with a heavy load.
Mrs Cherrie’s claim seeks the cost of replacing the washing machine.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they used the washing machine for a short period but then decided to swap it with their own, larger, washing machine. They moved Mrs Cherrie’s washing machine into the barn and did not use it. They moved it back into the house at the end of the tenancy.
They were not aware of any damage to the washing machine. They said it functioned without any problems while they were using it.
Ms Cherrie recalled that Ms Davis contacted her during the tenancy about the washing machine leaking and an error code coming up. Ms Davis disputed this. She said that she did not experience any leaks or error messages while using the landlord’s washing machine.
There is no evidence of this communication.
I was provided with a photograph showing the discoloration inside the door of the washing machine. I was not provided with a report or statement from the technician, or from the new tenants, confirming the damage to the drum.
On the evidence available to me, it is not proven that the washing machine sustained damage during the period of the tenancy that necessitates replacement of it. Ryobi weed eater
Ms Cherrie clarified that this item is a brush cutter not a weed eater. She had owned it for about two years before the tenancy. It was stored in the garage with other tools / gardening equipment.
Mr & Mrs Davis said they never saw this item during their tenancy.
There is no proof of purchase or pre-tenancy photograph of this item.
The claim is not proven. Extension ladders x 2
Ms Cherrie said that one ladder was kept in the garage and the other was up against the water tank. Ms Cherrie kept the ladder there so she could check the water level in the tank.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they did not see either of these ladders. They said that they used their own step ladder to check the level on the water tank.
There is no proof of purchase or pre-tenancy photograph of this item.
The claim is not proven. Dyson vacuum cleaner
Ms Cherrie said that she kept this vacuum cleaner, and its charger, in an upstairs cupboard. At the end of the tenancy, she found it downstairs on one of the divan beds. It no longer ‘sucked’ and when she investigated it, she found that an internal component was missing and it appeared to have been used to suck up something wet.
Ms Cherrie said that she bought the vacuum cleaner about a year before the start of the tenancy, and it functioned normally when she was living there.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they did not use this vacuum cleaner at all during the tenancy. They had their own vacuum cleaner.
The fact that Ms Cherrie found the vacuum cleaner downstairs on a divan bed, and also found the charging unit downstairs, tends to contradict Mr & Mrs Davis’ statement that they did not use this vacuum cleaner.
However, again there is very little evidence. I have one photograph of the vacuum cleaner sitting on the divan, presumably as Ms Davis discovered it. I have no evidence about the damage to it.
My finding is that there is insufficient evidence to establish, to the standard of more likely than not, that the vacuum cleaner was carelessly or intentionally damaged during the tenancy.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Stovetop elements
Ms Cherrie’s photographs from the end of the tenancy show that the elements on the stove are corroded.
The stove is 20 years old.
Ms Cherrie said that the stove was in excellent condition at the start of this tenancy.
The nature of the damage is not obviously due to tenant carelessness. The deterioration is consistent with the age of the stove. No evidence was provided of the condition of the stove at the start of the tenancy.
This part of the claim is not proven. MDF storage units
There were two of these units inside the house at the start of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis moved one of the units onto a covered deck. Ms Cherrie provided a photograph showing the condition of that unit at the end of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis moved the other unit into the barn. No photograph was provided of that unit.
The photograph shows that the unit on the deck is in a deteriorated condition. Ms Cherrie said that it has absorbed moisture and is structurally compromised.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that it was in that condition at the start of the tenancy.
MDF timber is vulnerable to moisture damage and is not suitable to be kept in areas where it be exposed to moisture. Mr & Mrs Davis’ action of moving the unit onto the deck was careless, and I accept that it is more likely than not that this action hastened the demise of the unit.
I do not know the pre-tenancy condition or age of the units, and I have no evidence of the post-tenancy condition of the unit that was put in the barn.
Having regard to depreciation I will award 50% of the replacement cost of one unit. Dog beds and dog blankets
Ms Cherrie left items related to the business, including numerous dog beds and blankets, and several dog kennels (discussed below).
Mr & Mrs Davis took the dog kennels and some of the beds and blankets. They left behind beds and blankets that were ‘worn out’. Ms Cherrie’s claim seeks compensation for 20 damaged dog beds and 50 damaged dog blankets.
Ms Cherrie said that these items were left damaged and stained, and no longer useable.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they assumed that Ms Cherrie had gifted the beds, blankets and kennels to them for use in the business, because Ms Cherrie had no intention to return to operating a dog boarding business.
My finding is that it is not proven that Ms Cherrie gifted these items to Mr & Mrs Davis. The fact that Ms Cherrie left them at the premises does not imply an intention to gift, and there is no evidence of statements by Ms Cherrie at that time that are consistent with an intention to gift.
However, Mr & Mrs Davis reasonably understood that they had Ms Cherrie’s consent to use the beds and blankets in their business.
It is appropriate to treat these items as chattels from a tenancy perspective. They belonged to the landlord and were part of the premises rented to the tenant that the tenant was permitted to use.
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.
Assessment of this part of the claim requires consideration of: a. The condition of the beds and blankets at the beginning of the tenancy. b. The condition of the beds and blankets at the end of the tenancy. c. What is ‘normal’ wear and tear for this type of equipment.
I have extremely limited information about all of those things. I do not know the condition of the blankets at the beginning of the tenancy beyond Ms Cherrie’s statement that she took good care of the beds and blankets when she ran the boarding business. I have three photographs from the end of the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie said that the deterioration of the beds and blankets during the Davis’ tenancy was significantly beyond what, in her experience, would be normal. Mr & Mrs Davis disagreed.
My finding is that there is insufficient evidence to establish that there was damage beyond fair wear and tear to the blankets and dog beds during the tenancy, and this part of the claim must be dismissed. Mats
The claim seeks the cost of replacing four mats on the grounds that the mats were damaged.
Mr & Mrs Davis accepted the claim for two mats, but disputed the other two.
The landlord’s evidence does not establish that four mats were damaged beyond fair wear and tear during the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie said that one of the mats was approximately 1 year old at the start of the tenancy and the other approximately 2 years old. The tenancy lasted nearly two years.
Depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost claimed by the landlord ($188 per rug).
I will award $150.40, being 2 mats at $188.00 less depreciation of 60%. Lounge chairs
The claim seeks the cost of replacing four lounge chairs.
The tenants moved these chairs into the barn during the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie’s end of tenancy photographs show two of the chairs. The chairs are marked with what appears to be bird droppings. The front leg of one of the chairs is broken.
I do not have evidence of the pre-tenancy condition of these chairs. Ms Cherrie said that the chairs were approximately five years old at the start of the tenancy in 2023.
The claims seeks 4 x $149.00, based on the cost of similar looking chairs for sale at a discounted price at Danske Mobler furniture.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they used these chairs for a while, but then moved them into the barn. They said that they covered the chairs but the cover must have been disturbed, because there were bird droppings on the chairs at the end of the tenancy.
The chairs had been kept inside the house before the start of this tenancy. It is disputed, and not proven, that Mr & Mrs Davis agreed to store all of the landlord’s belongings in the storage facility associated with their business in Ruakaka. However, although that specific storage arrangement is not proven, the tenants had a duty to store the landlord’s belongings in a safe and suitable manner.
Birds and rodents could (and did) get into the ‘middle room’ in the barn. These chairs were uncovered for an unknown period of time – long enough for them to become damaged by bird droppings.
Some compensation is warranted on this basis, but the claim for replacement of four chairs is not proven. I have photographs of two chairs only. It is not proven that the damage (broken leg) occurred during the tenancy. I have no information about whether the bird dropping stains could be removed by professional cleaning.
Having regard to those factors, I will make a conservative award of compensation, recognising that there was damage to two of the chairs for which the tenants are responsible, but also recognising that the loss has not been quantified.
I will award $150.00. Divan beds x 2
Ms Cherrie said that the divans were in new condition before the start of the tenancy and she had been sleeping on them in the lounge. Several weeks after the start of the tenancy she visited the property and noticed that the beds were stacked on top of each other in the lounge.
At the end of the tenancy the divans were back in the lounge, but they were stained with bird droppings and smelled bad.
The claim seeks $1100 for replacement of the beds, based on listings of similar items on Trade Me.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that the divans were in the barn for most the tenancy. They were covered when they were in the barn. When they returned them to the house at the end of the tenancy, they noticed some minor staining (bird droppings) but no other damage.
Mr & Mrs Davis denied that there was dog urine damage on the couches and denied that there was any damage other a small amount of bird droppings.
In the absence of a photograph of the beds from the end of the tenancy, my finding is that it is not proven that the beds were damaged during the tenant to the extent that replacement of them is justified.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Timber bookcase
Ms Cherrie seeks the cost of replacing a timber bookcase on the grounds that the shelves were broken during the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie did not have a photograph of this bookcase, but it is captured in the photographs that Mrs Davis took on the last day, 15 July 2025.
Mrs Davis’ photograph shows the bookcase in situ in a bedroom, with the landlord’s belongings still on it.
The bookcase appears intact. Ms Cherrie said that the bottom shelf was broken and was sitting loose, and it only appears intact because it is resting on top of the items underneath it.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they did not touch or use this bookshelf, and they are not aware of any damage to it.
Ms Cherrie has the burden of proof, and the only photograph available of this item does not show the damage that Ms Cherrie alleges.
This part of the claim is not proven. Kennels
Mr & Mrs Davis took the two dog kennels (one large, one small) on the understanding that Ms Cherrie had gifted all of the dog boarding business chattels to them.
As discussed above, Ms Cherrie denies this, and my finding is that it is not proven
At the hearing, Mr & Mrs Davis said that they were prepared to return the kennels to Ms Cherrie. Ms Cherrie declined because she was concerned about what condition they might be in.
I agree that Ms Cherrie is not obliged to accept the return of the kennels more than 7 months after the end of the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie is entitled to compensation for replacement.
The amount claimed for new replacement is $414.00 ($229.00 for the large, $185.00 for the small).
The kennels were approximately two years old at the start of the tenancy, but Ms Cherrie said that they were still unused at that time.
Depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost claimed, but I accept that the kennels were only two years old at the end of the tenancy in terms of use. I will apply depreciation of 25% to the new replacement cost claimed. Troughs
The claim seeks the cost of replacing five plastic stock troughs.
Ms Cherrie said that there were four larger troughs in the barn at the start of the tenancy. The troughs were plumbed in (it was set up for horses). There was also one smaller plastic trough, located near the milking shed.
Ms Cherrie said that at the end of the tenancy all of the troughs were missing.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they moved one of the large troughs to a paddock. They said that they had Ms Cherrie’s permission for this, which Ms Cherrie denied.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that at the end of the tenancy they put all of the large troughs into a stall in the barn. They said that they never saw a smaller trough.
Ms Cherrie said that she looked all over the property for the troughs but was unable to locate them.
It is not disputed that the four larger troughs were present, in the barn, at the start of the tenancy.
It is not proven that the tenants had the landlord’s permission to disconnect and move the troughs.
I accept that Ms Cherrie was not able to find troughs and that she has looked over the property thoroughly – the hearing took place eight months after the end of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis commented that Ms Cherrie does not intend to have horses again at the property.
Ms Cherrie’s claim does not include any plumbing costs, only the cost of replacing the troughs themselves.
The claim seeks $947.96 (4 new 80l troughs at $236.99 each). Ms Cherrie said that the troughs in the barn were about 15 years old. Mr & Mrs Davis commented that they did not think that the troughs were 80l.
The tenants are liable for the missing troughs, but it is appropriate to take a conservative approach to the assessment of appropriate compensation, given the limited evidence. I accept Ms Cherrie’s replacement cost as a starting point, with discounts for the lack of evidence that the replacements are ‘like for like’ and for lack of evidence of the age and condition of the troughs.
I will award one-third of the cost claimed. Dining table & chairs
Ms Cherrie said that her dining table and two chairs were in the house at the start of the tenancy. The table and chairs were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The claim seeks compensation of $1,500.00, although I note that the evidence provided in support of this is a Trade Me listing for a dining table and two chairs with a “buy now” price of $450.00.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they loaned out the table and chairs to family in Ruakaka, on the understanding that Ms Cherrie frequently said during their tenancy that she had no further use for various items of furniture.
Ms Cherrie denied this strenuously, and there is nothing in writing to support the tenant’s argument.
The table and chairs belonged to Ms Cherrie, and it is not proven that she abandoned it or gifted it to Mr & Mrs Davis. Mr & Mrs Davis’ obligation was to store it appropriately and reinstate it at the end of the tenancy, which they failed to do.
Ms Cherrie is entitled to compensation for the loss.
I have no information about the condition, age, and value of the dining table and chairs, but I accept that the Trade Me listing is Ms Cherrie’s assessment of the nearest equivalent that she could find, and the figure of $450 is a reasonable assessment of compensation for a functional dining table and two chair set.
I will award $450.00. Smoke alarms
Ms Cherrie said that there were several smoke alarms in the house that were missing at the end of the tenancy. The smoke alarms were not installed but were simply sitting loose.
It is not clear whether the premises met the legal requirements for smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy, but this is not part of the tenants’ application.
The tenants said that they did not notice any smoke alarms during the tenancy, and they did not move or remove any smoke alarms at the end.
The is no evidence to show that there were smoke alarms in the premises at the start of the tenancy.
This part of the claim must be dismissed. Gas bottles
Ms Cherrie said that she provided two gas bottles at the start of the tenancy – one connected, and one as a ‘back up’.
At the end of the tenancy she found only one gas bottle, and it was empty.
The tenants said that they only saw one gas bottle during their tenancy.
There is no evidence that there were two gas bottles at the premises at the start of the tenancy.
This part of the claim is not proven. Office blind
Ms Cherrie said that the roll down custom-made blind over the French doors in the office was damaged during the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they were not aware of any damage to this blind.
There are no photographs or other evidence to establish the damage.
The landlord has not met the burden of proof, and this part of the claim is dismissed. Security fence
Ms Cherrie had a security fence at the rear of the property (to keep dogs contained). Ms Cherrie said that at the end of the tenancy she noticed that one of the sliding gates in the fence was damaged at the top. Ms Cherrie said that the ‘uprights’ that extend from the top of the gate were snapped and simply ‘sitting in place’.
The claim seeks $196.25 per a quote from Kaine Sturley.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they were not aware of any damage to the fence during the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie did not provide a photograph of the damage, but at the hearing Mrs Davis produced a photograph taken in July 2025 that showed the gate. I viewed the photograph at the hearing, but the damage was not clear.
There is insufficient evidence to establish this part of the claim. Tools
Ms Cherrie said that there were two tool kits in the room in the house reserved for her items. The tool kits were missing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they moved some of the items from that room but they did not see any tool kits.
There is no photograph or chattels list to establish the presence of these items at the start of the tenancy.
The claim is not proven. Carpet replacement
The claim seeks the cost of replacing the upstairs carpet ($2,930.67 per a quote from Deans Flooring).
Ms Cherrie said that the carpet was stained throughout, with the worst stains upstairs.
Ms Cherrie said that the carpet in the downstairs part of the house could be cleaned, but the upstairs carpet was so badly stained that it had to be replaced.
Ms Cherrie said that the upstairs carpet is original from when she purchased the property in 2000, but it was in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis agreed that the upstairs carpet was free of visible stains at the start of the tenancy and that pet stains occurred during their tenancy. Mr & Mrs Davis clarified that this was not because of boarding dogs, but their own dogs.
The condition at the end of the tenancy is shown in Ms Cherrie’s photographs.
I am satisfied that the damage to the upstairs carpet was such that replacement of the carpet is justified. The damage that occurred during Mr & Mrs Davis’ tenancy is beyond fair wear and tear.
Depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost claimed. Twenty five years is at the maximum limit of life expectancy for carpet. The depreciated value of the carpet from an IRD perspective was essentially zero. However, I accept that the carpet was in good condition for its age before the start of this tenancy, and could have had a few more years of useable life if it had been exposed to normal wear and tear during this tenancy rather than extensive staining.
Having regard to those factors I will apply depreciation of 80% to the new replacement cost claimed. King size beds
There were king beds in the two upstairs bedrooms at the start of the tenancy.
Ms Cherrie had purchased the beds in 2020. She had not used the beds much before the start of the tenancy because her habit was to sleep downstairs where the dogs were.
Ms Cherrie said that at the end of the tenancy both mattresses and bases had dark stains on them. She disposed of both beds.
Ms Cherrie provided a photograph of one mattress only. The photograph shows a dark stain covering most of the surface of the mattress.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they also did not use the upstairs beds often. Their son used one of the rooms when he visited, but he was not there all the time. They said that the beds were made up when their tenancy began, and they do not know the condition of the mattresses at the start of the tenancy.
There is insufficient evidence to establish that damage beyond fair wear and tear occurred during the period of this tenancy.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Glass panes damaged
Two glass panes were damaged during the tenancy (French door and back door). Ms Cherrie provided photographs of this damage.
There was some disagreement about how the damage happened, but the landlord only has to show that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. There is no evidence to show that the damage was caused by someone who was at the premises without the tenant’s consent, or in circumstances that did not amount to a careless or intentional action by the tenants or someone / something for whom they were responsible.
The cost of re-glazing is proven. Water filter replacement
Ms Cherrie said that the household water filters were replaced soon before the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy the water pressure was low. She involved Aqua Fresh, who advised her that the filters were clogged and needed to be replaced.
Ms Cherrie holds the tenants liable for this cost on the grounds that they allowed the tank water to run low.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that they replaced the filters in April 2025. They ran low on water at times during their tenancy, but not during winter.
Landlords are responsible for replacing items that wear out through ordinary use, such as water filters. Tenants are liable for damage resulting from careless or intentional actions.
It is not proven that the deterioration of the new filters from April to July 2025 was due to some careless or intentional action by the tenants.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Damaged / missing chattels summary
The total proven claim is $2,414.32 per the table below: DescriptionAmount MDF storage unit$69.65 Mats$150.40 Lounge chairs$150.00 Kennels$310.50 Troughs $315.99 Dining table & chairs$450.00 Carpet $586.13 Glazing$831.65 $2,864.32 Swimming pool
Ms Cherrie put the swimming pool in in 2008. Ms Cherrie has replaced the pump and filtration system since then.
Ms Cherrie said that before the start of this tenancy there was a crack / leak from around a jet nozzle. Ms Cherrie had the crack repaired, but she acknowledged that there was intermittent leaking even after that repair.
Ms Cherrie said that apart from that known leak, the pool was in good repair and in useable condition at the start of the tenancy.
During the tenancy, Ms Cherrie noticed that the water level was too low on the pool. She told the tenants that they needed to keep the water level topped up or they could risk damaging the pool.
At the end of the tenancy: a. The pool was green and dirty. b. There was a new (second) leak from around a light. c. The pump was seized. d. The filtration system needed repairs (replacement of sand media).
Ms Cherrie argued that all of this damage was a consequence of the tenants failing to take proper care of the pool, in particular running the pool with the water level too low.
Mr & Mrs Davis said that: a. The pool leaked. b. It was difficult to maintain the water level - they were using up their water to do so. c. When Ms Cherrie told them that they would need to keep the level up or turn off the pump they decided to turn off the pump because they were not using the pool anyway.
Ms Cherrie’s claim seeks costs as follows (all invoices are from Northland Spa and pool, dates stated are invoice dates): Replace pressure gauge 16.12.25:$142.50 Find and repair leaks 12.9.25$111.40 Find and repair leaks 11.10.25$250.27 Replace filter media$466.32
Ms Cherrie provided a photograph showing the pool in clean and tidy condition, which Ms Cherrie said was taken shortly before the start of this tenancy. Mr & Mrs Davis disputed this. They said that the pool water was green when the tenancy began. Ms Cherrie was unable to verify the date of the photograph.
The general principle for swimming pools in tenanted premises is that tenants are responsible for general cleaning, and tenants pay for use related costs (such as chemicals) while landlords are responsible for maintenance.
Ms Cherrie’s end of tenancy photographs show that the pool was in a very untidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The water level was very low and the pool was very dirty.
The condition of the pool of at the start of the tenancy is disputed and I have very little evidence about it, but it would be uncontroversial to state that the pool was in worse condition at the end than at the beginning.
However, Mr & Mrs Davis were not obliged to keep using the pool. The pool leaked. Ms Cherrie told them that if they weren’t able to keep it topped up, they should turn the pump off and stop using it. They chose to turn it off and stop using it. That was not a careless action, or a breach of any legal duty that they owed.
Ms Cherrie’s argument that the new damage to the pool (the second leak, the broken pressure gauge, and the new media required for the filter) is a consequence of the tenants continuing to run the pump and filter with the water level too low is speculative, and no evidence was provided to support the argument. Generally, if there is no water flow to a pump the pump simply cuts out.
My finding is that the only basis for a claim against the tenant in respect of the pool is that they failed to return it to the landlord in a reasonably tidy condition.
The costs claimed by the landlord do not pertain to this, although the landlord’s bundle of evidence included an invoice from February 2022 for a pool ‘valet’ including dosing with algicide and ‘shock n clear’ products. The cost of this service was $271.24.
On that basis I will award compensation of $300.00 for the tenants failing to return the pool to the landlord in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 1 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Ms Cherrie said that the premises were left in a very untidy state at the end of this tenancy. She arranged for two ‘working bees’ (one in late July and one on 3 August) and her claim seeks the cost of providing refreshments for the volunteers ($373.13), plus cleaning products ($285.19), and rubbish dumping costs ($299.90).
Ms Cherrie said that even after that tidy up, substantial cleaning was still required. That work was carried out by Jim’s Cleaning. The cost was $1,800.00.
Ms Cherrie provided photographs in support of this part of her claim, and statements from persons who are familiar with the property and who saw it after the end of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Davis said they cleaned the premises to a reasonable standard. Mrs Davis provided photographs showing the condition of the premises on her final day there – 15 July 2025. Mr & Mrs Davis said that the landlord’s evidence includes photographs that were taken while they were still cleaning and tidying in the week before 15 July.
There is a difficulty with the dating of the landlord’s photographs. It is clear that some were taken before 15 July because there are photographs showing the dog kennels that the tenants took with them (discussed above). Some of Ms Cherrie’s photographs were taken at the first working bee, and therefore they show the condition of the premises after the tenants left, but because the photographs are undated and were taken at various times, it is difficult to know which photographs are relevant.
I have read the statements provided by the people who helped Ms Cherrie with the clean up.
There is sufficient evidence to show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants did not remove all of their rubbish.
Ms Cherrie’s claim for ‘refreshments’ is imperfect in that the grocery receipts provided in support of the claim include items unrelated to refreshments, but the claim does not include any labour costs and is therefore (in my view) very reasonable and conservative.
The more difficult part of the claim is the Jims Cleaning invoice.
Ms Cherrie said: a. Even after thorough cleaning house still smelled of urine. b. Her helpers were (understandably) not willing to go up ladders to clean ceilings or to clean windows
A lot of the claim seems to relate to mess caused by rodents and by dogs.
Tenants must take reasonable steps to manage pests including rats and mice, but it is not the case that tenants are always liable for damage or mess caused by rodents. Rodents are an inevitable part of rural living.
Ms Cherrie rented the premises knowing that it was going to be used as a dog boarding business as well as a home. Consideration of ‘reasonably clean and tidy’ must take this into account.
My findings are that: a. The premises did not meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. b. The costs claimed for the ‘working bee’ exercises are a fair assessment of the cost of returning the premises to a “reasonably clean” standard. c. There is insufficient evidence to justify the cost of additional professional cleaning after the working bees.
I will award the cleaning and rubbish removal costs claimed excluding the Jims Cleaning invoice, which totals $1,028.22 per the table below: Claim number Description Amount 23Refreshments for volunteers$162.70 24Refreshments for volunteers$52.62 25Refreshments for volunteers$157.81 26Tip fees$110.80 27Tip fees$189.10 28Diesel$20.00 29Diesel$50.00 39Cleaning products$285.19 $1,028.22 Loss of rent
The claim seeks 61 days’ loss of rent on the grounds that the premises could not be re-let after the end of this tenancy due to the need for cleaning and rubbish removal. A new tenancy began on 8 September 2025.
The loss of rent claim is calculated on rent of $1750 per week.
The Tenancy Tribunal can award loss of rent as a type of consequential loss if the premises are not able to be re-let for a prolonged period due to the need for repairs or cleaning.
In considering claims of this type, the Tribunal takes into account the fact that there is often a ‘turn around’ period of several days between tenancies while the landlord prepares the property for the next tenancy, even if there are no issues with tenant damage or untidiness.
Also, unless the landlord already has a new tenant ‘lined up’ the loss caused by the delay is not an actual loss of rent but a loss of the opportunity to re-list the premises. How quickly the premises may be re-let after being put back on the market depends on market factors.
In this instance the main reason put forward as to why the premises could not be re-let promptly after the end of Mr & Mrs Davis’ tenancy was the need for cleaning and rubbish removal.
I have made a finding above that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the premises required additional professional cleaning after the second working bee.
I also note that the premises were re-rented at a rate of $500 per week, not $1500 plus GST. The calculation of damages for loss of rent must be based on loss of rent for the new tenancy.
Having regard to the factors set out above, my finding is that: a. The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and rubbish was not completely removed, even though Ms Cherrie gave the tenants another week after the end of the tenancy. b. The extent of cleaning and rubbish removal required meant that the premises could not be advertised as being available to rent for a prolonged period. Some amount of compensation for loss of rent is justified. c. Having regard to the factors discussed above, I will award compensation of $1,000.00, which represents two weeks at $500.00 per week. Costs
Where a party is represented by counsel, the Tenancy Tribunal may award reasonable costs in association with the proceedings. 2 2 Section 103(2)(b) RTA
In Wing On So v Body Corporate 349200 3 the District Court clarified the approach that the Tribunal should take to costs under section 103(2)(b) RTA. Judge Clark said that: the Tribunal should avoid an approach which starts with the position of what the actual costs are when indemnity costs cannot be claimed as of right. Rather, the approach should be an objective assessment of what steps had to be undertaken for the successful party to achieve the result they have, and in doing so applying the factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, using the scale costs regime as a guideline. This approach does allow flexibility and does not exclude a claim for close to indemnity costs if, in the context of what is “reasonable”, such costs can be justified. 4
The “factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand” that His Honour refers to are: An award of costs for counsel are usually a reasonable contribution to legal costs, not full costs. The usual range is 40 to 70 per cent of actual costs and factors to consider include the party's success, length of hearing, amount involved, importance of the issues, complexity, urgency, time for effective preparation, any unnecessary steps, arguments without substance, abuse of process, poor presentation, where the hearing time was lengthened by parties conduct and for guidance purposes, the District Court scale of costs. 5
Both parties were represented by counsel in these proceedings, and both sought costs.
In this instance: a. Both parties were partially successful in the proceedings. Mr & Mrs Davis’ sought refund of the bond and partial refund of refund based on an argument around GST. Mr & Mrs Davis will not receive the bond, and they withdrew their rent refund claim, but they successfully defended a substantial part of Ms Cherrie’s claim against them. b. Mr & Mrs Davis engaged Mr Reeves at a fairly early stage. Ms Cherrie engaged Mr Easton at a later point. The total legal costs incurred by Ms Cherrie exceeded Mr & Mrs Davis, but I acknowledge that Ms Cherrie’s claim was substantial (the amended bundle handed up at the hearing included 50 heads of claim totalling $42,056.32) and considerable work was necessary to organise and present the claim. c. Neither party engaged in conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, or presented arguments without substance, or was guilty of ‘poor preparation’. 3 [2024] NZDC 9439 4 At para 109 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018] at 9.23 d. Both parties (and the Tribunal) benefited from the assistance provided by Mr Easton and Mr Reeves. Both lawyers understood the particular requirements and processes of the Tenancy Tribunal and presented their case in a clear, logical, and succinct manner.
Having regard to: a. the fact that both parties were partially successful; and b. both parties incurred legal costs; and c. although the issues were not legally complex, both parties benefitted from the legal assistance that they received; and d. neither party engaged in conduct that warrants consideration in the allocation of costs; my finding is that each party must bear their own legal costs in this matter. Bond, filing fee
The amount owed to the landlord exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
Both parties were partially successful in the proceedings. Each must bear their own cost of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325952 — Property damage at 867 Springfield Road, Springfield, RD 8, Whangarei 0178

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325952 — Property damage at 867 Springfield Road, Springfield, RD 8, Whangarei 0178

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions