What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328742 about?

The tribunal order states: Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For Lion Lee Trustee Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5328742?

Compensation: clothesline depreciati…: $258.75 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328742?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12578379-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328742 about?

The tribunal order states: Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For Lion Lee Trustee Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5328742?

Compensation: clothesline depreciati…: $258.75 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328742?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12578379-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51A Windermere Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328742 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328742 — net $286.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: clothesline depreciation (50	$258.75	clothesline depreciation (50
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$286.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$286.75

Order

Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For Lion Lee Trustee Limited to pay [The tenant/s] $286.75 immediately as outlined in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
00 Total award $286.75 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $286.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Bradford attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant signed the bond refund form on 14 August 2025 allocating $1074.06 of the $2800.00 bond to the landlord.
The tenant claimed that she signed the form on the advice of Tenancy Services who said that she should do so and then make a claim at the Tribunal for repayment of the money retained by the landlord which is under dispute.
This would not be the usual course of action but the dates of the signing of the bond refund form and the application date (19 August 2025) support the view that this was the tenant’s understanding of the advice she received, and I am prepared to review the landlord deductions from the bond on that basis.
The tenant also made a claim relating to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Regulations. This claim was withdrawn during the hearing.
The tenant also claims that the landlord breached her right to privacy or the quite enjoyment of the tenancy premises.
Many other matters were raised at the hearing relating to the tenancy generally and the relationship between the parties. There were no breaches identified in relation to any of these other issues, so I do not need to refer to them here.
The tenant was concerned that she had been unable to attend the final inspection and was not given an opportunity to put any remaining matters right.
Although the tenant should have been able to attend the final inspection, the evidence suggests that she gave limited times which she was available, and these did not suit the landlord. There is no evidence that her attendance would have made any difference to the matters at hand as the tenant denies responsibility for some issues and would not necessarily have had time to address the other matters as the new tenants were taking possession immediately.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Both parties provided evidence to support their claims to the bond.
The total amount deducted by the landlord was $1,074.06.
The tenant accepted claims for a small amount of rent arrears, repairs to a wall and key cutting. The total amount accepted was $186.56 leaving $887.50 in dispute.
This related to: a. $185.00 for professional carpet cleaning throughout the main house. b. $185.00 for supplying and installing garage door bolts due to alleged misplaced key. c. $517.50 for replacement of a clothesline allegedly damaged by the tenant.
The tenant accepted that she had a dog on the premises for at least a few months before relocating the dog at the landlord’s request due to damage caused to the premises and dogs not being permitted under the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement allowed one pet being a lop-eared rabbit (to be kept outside).
On discovery of the dog (and bird) and resulting damage the landlord issued a 14-day notice which required (amongst other repairs) that the carpet be professionally cleaned.
The tenant asked if she could hire a rug doctor instead due to the cost of professional cleaning and the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord noted that the carpets were in clean condition and had been professionally cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy but said a rug doctor “will be fine this time.”
The landlord supplied photographs taken at an inspection to confirm that the puppy had defecated on the carpet on at least one occasion.
Although the rug doctor was accepted by the landlord to remedy the 14-day notice (in 2022), I do not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to expect a professional carpet clean at the end of the tenancy given that there was knowledge of animal faeces being on the carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord’s deduction for carpet cleaning is approved.
The tenant accepted that she had not been able to return all keys. She accepted the cost of the replacement keys for the sleepout. She did not accept responsibility for the cost of the new bolts and keys for the garage.
The tenant said she had not received a garage key and that the garage was never locked.
Photographs were provided to show the keys given to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. One of these was identified by the landlord as the garage key.
A new key was not able to be obtained for the existing bolts and they needed to be replaced with new bolts and new keys.
A tenant is obliged to return all keys provided and is liable for the cost of replacement keys if they are unable to do so. Depending on the style of lock, this can involve having new locks installed as it has here.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the cost of the new locks and the landlord’s deduction is approved.
The landlord and tenant provided evidence to support their opposing views as related to the damaged clothesline.
The landlord accepted that the clothesline was at least 10 years old and, given the style, it is my view that it could be considerably older. It does appear to be in reasonable condition in the landlord’s photographs, but the tenant says it had rusted in parts and was difficult to use
The tenant said that it was already damaged at the beginning of her tenancy and that the further damage that occurred was because of that initial age- related damage.
It is clear that considerable damage occurred to the clothesline during the tenancy. The line appeared usable and looked satisfactory in the ingoing photograph and was clearly in need of replacement at the end of the tenancy with damage to multiple arms.
The landlord provided an email from their handyman which said, “Someone had to physically bend that bar up like that which has caused it to snap off... that can’t be caused by wind or any other simple explanation except physical force”.
The photographs and the above statement make it clear that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If rust had been apparent, the handyman would very likely have referred to that.
It is for a tenant to prove, on the balance of probabilities that the damage was not intentionally or carelessly done.
The tenant has not been able to satisfy the Tribunal to the required standard that she should not be liable for this damage.
The landlord has deducted the full price of a new clothesline including installation.
Given that the clothesline was at least (and likely more than) 10 years old, I have reduced the amount for which the tenant should be liable by 50% of the amount claimed to allow for depreciation.
The landlord’s deduction is approved to the amount of $258.75. The balance of this deduction must be refunded to the tenant to account for depreciation.
The applicant claimed that the landlord had breached her privacy by taking a photograph of a dog in her garden from a neighbouring property.
The landlord confirmed that she had been upstairs in a neighbouring property conducting an inspection of that property when she had seen a dog in the garden of the tenancy premises and photographed the dog.
This was in November 2022 and only a short time after the puppy had been removed from the property after causing considerable damage. The landlord believed it to be the same dog that she had recently asked the tenant to remove.
The landlord issued a breach notice in relation to the dog, but it was seemingly taken no further.
Although the tenant may feel her privacy has been invaded, I do not consider that this is a breach of the Act.
The landlord was not at the premises to inspect the tenant’s property without notice. It was by chance that she saw the dog in the garden from the neighbour’s property. The photograph was not available to the Tribunal, but the landlord said it was of the dog only.
The tenant did not know about the incident until the landlord issued the breach notice so cannot have felt at the time that her privacy was being invaded.
The landlord took the matter no further so there was no loss to the tenant.
No compensation or damages can flow from this incident as there has been no proven breach.
As the tenant has been partly successful, I have ordered refund of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328742 — net $286.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: clothesline depreciation (50	$258.75	clothesline depreciation (50
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$286.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$286.75

Order

Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For Lion Lee Trustee Limited to pay [The tenant/s] $286.75 immediately as outlined in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
00 Total award $286.75 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $286.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Bradford attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant signed the bond refund form on 14 August 2025 allocating $1074.06 of the $2800.00 bond to the landlord.
The tenant claimed that she signed the form on the advice of Tenancy Services who said that she should do so and then make a claim at the Tribunal for repayment of the money retained by the landlord which is under dispute.
This would not be the usual course of action but the dates of the signing of the bond refund form and the application date (19 August 2025) support the view that this was the tenant’s understanding of the advice she received, and I am prepared to review the landlord deductions from the bond on that basis.
The tenant also made a claim relating to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Regulations. This claim was withdrawn during the hearing.
The tenant also claims that the landlord breached her right to privacy or the quite enjoyment of the tenancy premises.
Many other matters were raised at the hearing relating to the tenancy generally and the relationship between the parties. There were no breaches identified in relation to any of these other issues, so I do not need to refer to them here.
The tenant was concerned that she had been unable to attend the final inspection and was not given an opportunity to put any remaining matters right.
Although the tenant should have been able to attend the final inspection, the evidence suggests that she gave limited times which she was available, and these did not suit the landlord. There is no evidence that her attendance would have made any difference to the matters at hand as the tenant denies responsibility for some issues and would not necessarily have had time to address the other matters as the new tenants were taking possession immediately.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Both parties provided evidence to support their claims to the bond.
The total amount deducted by the landlord was $1,074.06.
The tenant accepted claims for a small amount of rent arrears, repairs to a wall and key cutting. The total amount accepted was $186.56 leaving $887.50 in dispute.
This related to: a. $185.00 for professional carpet cleaning throughout the main house. b. $185.00 for supplying and installing garage door bolts due to alleged misplaced key. c. $517.50 for replacement of a clothesline allegedly damaged by the tenant.
The tenant accepted that she had a dog on the premises for at least a few months before relocating the dog at the landlord’s request due to damage caused to the premises and dogs not being permitted under the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement allowed one pet being a lop-eared rabbit (to be kept outside).
On discovery of the dog (and bird) and resulting damage the landlord issued a 14-day notice which required (amongst other repairs) that the carpet be professionally cleaned.
The tenant asked if she could hire a rug doctor instead due to the cost of professional cleaning and the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord noted that the carpets were in clean condition and had been professionally cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy but said a rug doctor “will be fine this time.”
The landlord supplied photographs taken at an inspection to confirm that the puppy had defecated on the carpet on at least one occasion.
Although the rug doctor was accepted by the landlord to remedy the 14-day notice (in 2022), I do not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to expect a professional carpet clean at the end of the tenancy given that there was knowledge of animal faeces being on the carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord’s deduction for carpet cleaning is approved.
The tenant accepted that she had not been able to return all keys. She accepted the cost of the replacement keys for the sleepout. She did not accept responsibility for the cost of the new bolts and keys for the garage.
The tenant said she had not received a garage key and that the garage was never locked.
Photographs were provided to show the keys given to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. One of these was identified by the landlord as the garage key.
A new key was not able to be obtained for the existing bolts and they needed to be replaced with new bolts and new keys.
A tenant is obliged to return all keys provided and is liable for the cost of replacement keys if they are unable to do so. Depending on the style of lock, this can involve having new locks installed as it has here.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the cost of the new locks and the landlord’s deduction is approved.
The landlord and tenant provided evidence to support their opposing views as related to the damaged clothesline.
The landlord accepted that the clothesline was at least 10 years old and, given the style, it is my view that it could be considerably older. It does appear to be in reasonable condition in the landlord’s photographs, but the tenant says it had rusted in parts and was difficult to use
The tenant said that it was already damaged at the beginning of her tenancy and that the further damage that occurred was because of that initial age- related damage.
It is clear that considerable damage occurred to the clothesline during the tenancy. The line appeared usable and looked satisfactory in the ingoing photograph and was clearly in need of replacement at the end of the tenancy with damage to multiple arms.
The landlord provided an email from their handyman which said, “Someone had to physically bend that bar up like that which has caused it to snap off... that can’t be caused by wind or any other simple explanation except physical force”.
The photographs and the above statement make it clear that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If rust had been apparent, the handyman would very likely have referred to that.
It is for a tenant to prove, on the balance of probabilities that the damage was not intentionally or carelessly done.
The tenant has not been able to satisfy the Tribunal to the required standard that she should not be liable for this damage.
The landlord has deducted the full price of a new clothesline including installation.
Given that the clothesline was at least (and likely more than) 10 years old, I have reduced the amount for which the tenant should be liable by 50% of the amount claimed to allow for depreciation.
The landlord’s deduction is approved to the amount of $258.75. The balance of this deduction must be refunded to the tenant to account for depreciation.
The applicant claimed that the landlord had breached her privacy by taking a photograph of a dog in her garden from a neighbouring property.
The landlord confirmed that she had been upstairs in a neighbouring property conducting an inspection of that property when she had seen a dog in the garden of the tenancy premises and photographed the dog.
This was in November 2022 and only a short time after the puppy had been removed from the property after causing considerable damage. The landlord believed it to be the same dog that she had recently asked the tenant to remove.
The landlord issued a breach notice in relation to the dog, but it was seemingly taken no further.
Although the tenant may feel her privacy has been invaded, I do not consider that this is a breach of the Act.
The landlord was not at the premises to inspect the tenant’s property without notice. It was by chance that she saw the dog in the garden from the neighbour’s property. The photograph was not available to the Tribunal, but the landlord said it was of the dog only.
The tenant did not know about the incident until the landlord issued the breach notice so cannot have felt at the time that her privacy was being invaded.
The landlord took the matter no further so there was no loss to the tenant.
No compensation or damages can flow from this incident as there has been no proven breach.
As the tenant has been partly successful, I have ordered refund of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328742 — Tenancy dispute at 51A Windermere Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328742 — Tenancy dispute at 51A Windermere Road, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions