What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328956 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 5328956?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,173.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328956?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12434291-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328956 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 5328956?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,173.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328956?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12434291-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15B Pencarrow Crescent, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328956 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328956 — net $5,177.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,040.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Rubbish removal	$395.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs: Smash window	$235.00	Window repairs: Smash window
Wardrobe door	$126.50	Wardrobe door
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,173.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Repairs	$2,040.00	Repairs
Net award	$5,177.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,177.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Makerita Moore must pay [The landlord/s] $5,177.50 immediately, being rent arrears to 27 August 2025, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,040.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Rubbish removal$395.00 Window repairs: Smash window$235.00 Wardrobe door$126.50 Replace furnishings: Carpet$1,173.00 Repairs$2,040.00 Total award$6,037.50 Minus Bond-$860.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,177.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord withdrew their claim for the oven replacement during the hearing.

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.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 30 October 2020. At the start of the tenancy the property had been fully renovated with new carpet, walls and ceilings repainted.
The landlord became aware that the tenant had left the property in July 2025. The tenant says she believes she did give the landlord one weeks’ notice but could not provide proof of that. Regardless the tenant would be required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the tenancy agreement to give 28 days written notice to terminate the tenancy.
The rent was paid by WINZ and ceased on 30 July 2025. Applying 28 days’ notice from 30 July 2025provides an end date of 27 August 2025.
I have determined that the end of the tenancy was 27 August 2025. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS – Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $2040.00 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish, discarded possessions and clothing left at the property. Furthermore, the landlord provided an invoice for $395.00 for the cost of a skip bin to remove the rubbish.
The tenant does not dispute that she left the property in a dirty condition with rubbish throughout the exterior and interior of the property. The tenant does not want to claim any possessions she left at the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rubbish removal. Disposal of goods:
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord until the hearing had been unable to contact the tenant. However, at the hearing the tenant stated that she does not want to reclaim any of her possessions.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B (2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Smashed window in the main bedroom. -Smashed wardrobe door in main bedroom. -Carpet throughout the property was heavily stained and smelt of cat urine. -Interior walls were heavily marked, scratched, and dented. There were holes in some walls and nail varnish split in the bathroom.
The landlord provided photos of the damage to the carpet and the internal walls and detailed invoices for the cost of replacing the carpet and repairing the walls.
The tenant accepts that she is responsible for the smashed window and the wardrobe door. She does not dispute the cost of the repairs to the window and door.
The landlord seeks to replace the carpet due to the smell of animal urine and heavy staining. The photos and reports support the landlord claim for the replacement of the carpet. However, due to the age of the carpet I will have to deduct depreciation from the costs sought. I am awarding half the cost of the replacement carpet. The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has set the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential rental property to 8 years.
The landlord made a claim on their insurance policy for the replacement carpet. The claim was withdrawn by the landlord due to the excess costs. The insurance company considered that there were approximately 6 separate events, which would incur 6 separate excess payments of $550.00 each.
The invoice for the repairs to the walls includes the cost of repainting all the walls and ceilings in the house. The landlord said that the ceiling was not damaged but had to be repainted at the same time as the walls. The tenant must not be held responsible for repainting that is done as part of maintenance rather than damage.
I accept that if the landlord was repairing and repainting the walls then repainting the ceilings would be practical. However, while the tenant does not dispute the damage to the walls, she should not be charged for the full cost of the painting. Having considered depreciation and the ceilings that were repainted despite there were no damages to them by the tenant, I have reduced the award to one third of the cost of the total painting.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are 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.
I am satisfied that the amounts considered and set out above, have been proven. Filing fee/ Bond/Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the landlord immediately, to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for suppression and as they have been successful with their application, I am granting suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328956 — net $5,177.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,040.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Rubbish removal	$395.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs: Smash window	$235.00	Window repairs: Smash window
Wardrobe door	$126.50	Wardrobe door
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,173.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Repairs	$2,040.00	Repairs
Net award	$5,177.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,177.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Makerita Moore must pay [The landlord/s] $5,177.50 immediately, being rent arrears to 27 August 2025, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,040.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Rubbish removal$395.00 Window repairs: Smash window$235.00 Wardrobe door$126.50 Replace furnishings: Carpet$1,173.00 Repairs$2,040.00 Total award$6,037.50 Minus Bond-$860.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,177.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord withdrew their claim for the oven replacement during the hearing.

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.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 30 October 2020. At the start of the tenancy the property had been fully renovated with new carpet, walls and ceilings repainted.
The landlord became aware that the tenant had left the property in July 2025. The tenant says she believes she did give the landlord one weeks’ notice but could not provide proof of that. Regardless the tenant would be required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the tenancy agreement to give 28 days written notice to terminate the tenancy.
The rent was paid by WINZ and ceased on 30 July 2025. Applying 28 days’ notice from 30 July 2025provides an end date of 27 August 2025.
I have determined that the end of the tenancy was 27 August 2025. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS – Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $2040.00 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish, discarded possessions and clothing left at the property. Furthermore, the landlord provided an invoice for $395.00 for the cost of a skip bin to remove the rubbish.
The tenant does not dispute that she left the property in a dirty condition with rubbish throughout the exterior and interior of the property. The tenant does not want to claim any possessions she left at the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rubbish removal. Disposal of goods:
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord until the hearing had been unable to contact the tenant. However, at the hearing the tenant stated that she does not want to reclaim any of her possessions.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B (2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Smashed window in the main bedroom. -Smashed wardrobe door in main bedroom. -Carpet throughout the property was heavily stained and smelt of cat urine. -Interior walls were heavily marked, scratched, and dented. There were holes in some walls and nail varnish split in the bathroom.
The landlord provided photos of the damage to the carpet and the internal walls and detailed invoices for the cost of replacing the carpet and repairing the walls.
The tenant accepts that she is responsible for the smashed window and the wardrobe door. She does not dispute the cost of the repairs to the window and door.
The landlord seeks to replace the carpet due to the smell of animal urine and heavy staining. The photos and reports support the landlord claim for the replacement of the carpet. However, due to the age of the carpet I will have to deduct depreciation from the costs sought. I am awarding half the cost of the replacement carpet. The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has set the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential rental property to 8 years.
The landlord made a claim on their insurance policy for the replacement carpet. The claim was withdrawn by the landlord due to the excess costs. The insurance company considered that there were approximately 6 separate events, which would incur 6 separate excess payments of $550.00 each.
The invoice for the repairs to the walls includes the cost of repainting all the walls and ceilings in the house. The landlord said that the ceiling was not damaged but had to be repainted at the same time as the walls. The tenant must not be held responsible for repainting that is done as part of maintenance rather than damage.
I accept that if the landlord was repairing and repainting the walls then repainting the ceilings would be practical. However, while the tenant does not dispute the damage to the walls, she should not be charged for the full cost of the painting. Having considered depreciation and the ceilings that were repainted despite there were no damages to them by the tenant, I have reduced the award to one third of the cost of the total painting.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are 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.
I am satisfied that the amounts considered and set out above, have been proven. Filing fee/ Bond/Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the landlord immediately, to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for suppression and as they have been successful with their application, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328956 — Property damage at 15B Pencarrow Crescent, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328956 — Property damage at 15B Pencarrow Crescent, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

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