What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327381 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5327381?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $411.42 awarded to landlord; Rumpus Window: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327381?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327381 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5327381?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $411.42 awarded to landlord; Rumpus Window: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327381?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327381 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327381 — net $1,861.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 June 2025	$411.42	Rent arrears to 18 June 2025
Damage to doors	$550.00	Damage to doors
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Rumpus window	$172.50	Repairs: Rumpus window
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,861.92
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,861.92

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327381 — net $1,861.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 June 2025	$411.42	Rent arrears to 18 June 2025
Damage to doors	$550.00	Damage to doors
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Rumpus window	$172.50	Repairs: Rumpus window
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,861.92
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,861.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application in relation to the shed window, carpet rip, cladding, ranch slider and curtains are dismissed.
Sharlene Morunga to pay [The landlord/s] $1,861.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,861.92 Sharlene Morunga: $538.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: like 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord seeks rent to 18 June 2025 and the landlord provided a rent summary.
I heard how the tenant was given a 90 day notice by the landlord for the tenancy to end.
The tenant says she moved out on 18 June 2025. However, the tenant says that the landlord (the owner) said she did not have to pay rent in the last week / 6 days of the tenancy. She says on the 90 th day of the tenancy the owner reached out to her by telephone and asked her to stay on. She said she could not do that and he had then said that she could take her time to move out and did not have to pay rent. She says 10 June was the final day of the 90 day notice.
The landlord agrees that a few days extra were given to the tenant to stay on after the end of the 90-day notice but not that it was rent free. The landlord notes there is nothing in writing offering final days for free.
I am satisfied that the tenancy ended on 18 June when the tenant left the premises.
The tenant has not sufficiently proven her position that there was an agreement regarding a reduction of her rent allowing her to remain at the property rent free for a period. She is liable for the rent for the time she remained in possession of the property and therefore I award rent to 18 June 2025 being $411.42.

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 did not remove all rubbish. The landlord seeks $598 in rubbish disposal costs.
The tenant moved into this property on the day the landlord bought it. I heard how there were problems getting access to the property on the first day of the tenancy (with the tenant referring to someone who was living in the house refusing to leave).
The tenant was frank in admitting that various items left were hers. The main items being a couch, chairs and a BBQ. However, the tenant says there were a number of items left at the property when she moved in. She says a glass table that the landlord is claiming she left is not hers.
The ingoing property inspection report contains photographs of many items the tenant says were not hers.
I find that this is not surprising because it seems likely that the photographs were taken prior to the tenancy beginning when the property was still being lived in by someone else. The tenancy began on 22 May 2021 when the landlord became the owner of the property. The inspection is dated 20 May 2021 and the photographs appear to be date stamped 21 May 2021. The property manager explained that they were given permission to access and market the property for rent prior to the sale concluding.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant left the rubbish it has claimed disposal costs for save for the glass table. I find she is not liable for the disposal cost of that.
I find that it is reasonable for the tenant to pay $400 for rubbish removal given the items that were left. The sum ordered is proven.
The landlord says that the carpets needed cleaning because they had a strong odour of dog and pet urine. The tenant had a pet dog that was permitted. The tenant did not deny an odour but said that it was probably a wet carpet smell due to a leak in the hot water cylinder.
The landlord says the odour is so strong the carpets have been cleaned three more times and may still need replacing.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the carpets needed cleaning due to an odour at the end of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to establish that this was caused by a maintenance issue as the tenant claims. I find that the carpet was not therefore left reasonably clean by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim is proven, and the amount sought is awarded as I consider it to be reasonable.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 Tribunal takes 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors. Damage to doors
The landlord says there has been damage done to the doors of the bathroom, bedroom 1, bedroom 3, lounge and toilet.
The landlord says that bathroom door has a hole. The tenant says her son took his feelings out on the door while he was grieving. I accept this is more than fair wear and tear and I am satisfied this is most likely intentional damage given the circumstances in which this occurred.
The door of bedroom 1 has been replaced but the replacement is damaged and not installed appropriately. The tenant says she replaced the door after the event involving her son referred to above. The original door has been removed. I am not satisfied the replacement was sufficient. I accept this is more than fair wear and tear and I find this is most likely intentional damage given the circumstances in which this occurred.
The living room door is missing. The tenant says it was removed and she does not know where it has gone. I accept this is more than fair wear and tear and I find this is most likely intentional damage.
The door of bedroom 3 has a large crack through it. The tenant says part of the wood of the door was catching when it was opening and closing, and this was the result of that. I accept this is more than fair wear and tear and find this is most likely intentional damage given the extent of the damage pictured.
The toilet door has a hole the size of a golf ball. The tenant says that is fair wear and tear. I find that a hole in a door such as this is beyond fair wear and tear. I find this is most likely intentional damage given the type of damage combined with the damage to other doors.
The landlord seeks $2799.10 for replacement doors. However, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account.
The doors appear to be original to the property which I heard is of the 1970s era. The landlord had no evidence to offer in relation to their age otherwise.
In relation to replacement of wooden hollow core doors, depreciation guidelines estimate that such doors should last 20-30 years. Given the likely age of the doors they should be fully depreciated. However, I accept that but for the damage, they would be expected to last a few more years. Therefore, I consider that the landlord is entitled to some contribution to their replacement and I allow $550 being approximately 20% of the claim. Rumpus sleepout – missing glass panel from window
The landlord says a pane of glass was removed from the rumpus room. This is supported by photographs from the exit inspection report. The landlord says this report was done within hours of the tenant returning the keys.
In photographs the rubbers can be observed hanging loose around the window. The tenant says she has no recollection of the glass being missing.
I find that more likely than not the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and given the entire panel is removed I find it most likely to be intentional damage.
I do not consider it necessary to depreciate the sum claimed as I do not consider that replacing a glass window such as this amounts to betterment.
The sum ordered of $172.50 is proven. Cladding and ranch slider and rip in carpet
The landlord says that some white cladding in an outside porch area has been broken and seeks repair costs of $356.50. The tenant says this occurred during a hangi which was being put down after her mother had passed away. Items were being carried and were dropped. I find this to be more than fair wear and tear and find it most likely to be careless damage.
The landlord says the tenant has broken glass in a ranch slider so this needed to be repaired at the cost of $287.50. The tenant says this occurred when she was moving out. I find this to be more than fair wear and tear and find it most likely to be careless damage.
The landlord seeks the costs of remedying a rip in the carpet and says the rip is central in the room and cost $103.50 to repair. The landlord says the damage was not there at the start of the tenancy and this is reflected in the ingoing property inspection which notes that the carpet is in good condition. The tenant says that the carpet was not damaged when she left. The landlord says the outgoing inspection was done within hours of having the keys returned.
I find that the landlord has the better evidence that the carpet was not damaged at the start of the tenancy in this way but that it was damaged at the end of the tenancy, therefore, I find that it is more likely than not that the damage has been done during the course of the tenancy. Given the nature of the damage I find it is more than fair wear and tear and most likely careless damage.
The difficulty for the landlord in establishing these claims is that it did not have any insurance details available at the hearing.
The amount of a landlord’s insurance excess is important here because where damage is found to be careless a tenant’s liability is capped at that excess amount. No current insurance information was available to the Tribunal. Short adjournments were given during the hearing whereby the landlord could obtain this information but ultimately it could not be provided prior to the end of the hearing.
I understand from the Registry that the landlord attempted to file information by email later in the day after the hearing had ended. However, by this stage the hearing was complete and it was too late to advance new evidence. No new information or evidence will be considered after a hearing has ended. The time for presenting evidence is at the hearing itself. Ample time was given for this to be obtained at the hearing.
In any event, even if the landlord had filed an insurance certificate proving the present excess, I would not have made an award here because the landlord failed to notify the tenant of her liability for careless damage in such circumstances as required by the RTA. This is because since August 2019, s 13A(2) RTA provides that landlords must provide insurance information in any new tenancy agreement. The required information includes whether or not the property is insured and the excess applicable relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction or damage. If this information changes during the tenancy, subsection 13A(4) of the RTA provides that the landlord must provide the correction information to the tenant in writing within a reasonable time after the landlord becomes aware of the change.
I am not satisfied that the landlord complied with s 13A(2) RTA here. While it advised the tenant there was insurance there was no evidence to show the tenant had been advised of the excess amount. The landlord noted that it appeared not to have been given. Incorrect information relating to insurance excess has impacted on awards made in other Tribunal decisions (see for example, Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039).
I consider that s 13A provides tenants with a meaningful opportunity to assess risk and make informed decisions about their own insurance needs. Without disclosure of the insurance excess, a tenant cannot understand the extent of their potential liability for careless damage. Compliance with this statutory requirement is therefore a fundamental prerequisite to establishing tenant liability under these circumstances.
These claims are therefore dismissed. Curtains
The landlord says that the curtains were damaged as they were frayed at the top. The landlord was unable to provide any indication on the age of the curtains. The evidence shows they were purchased along with the house. The tenant says they might be frayed but not damaged. The IRD Guides provide that the expected life span of curtains is 8 years.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven the damage is anything other than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.
In any event, given there was no information regarding the age of the curtains, I would have declined to make an award. This is because depreciation must be considered when assessing compensation. Curtains are chattels with a limited useful life, and without evidence of their age, it is not possible to determine their current value. Shed
The landlord says that glass is missing from a louvre window in the garage/shed. The landlord relies on marketing photographs taken before the tenancy began (and before the landlord owned the property).
The tenant says that when she moved in there were only 2 louvre glass pieces in place, and one of those was damaged.
Given the timing of the ingoing inspection and the circumstances in which this tenant moved in I find that the landlord’s evidence is insufficient to establish the condition of the window at the start of the tenancy.
This part of the claim is not proven and is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
I award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee given the level of success they have had in this application.
The landlord seeks suppression of its identifying details (see section 95A RTA). The tenant does not.
The landlord has been substantially successful in that it has obtained a number of orders against the tenant and therefore I award name suppression. The tenant does not seek suppression of her details so I have not considered this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327381 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327381 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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