What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339368 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5339368?

Cleaning: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,514.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339368?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12660768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339368 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5339368?

Cleaning: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,514.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339368?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12660768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59 Liverpool Street, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339368 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339368 — net $5,536.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,900.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,514.92	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement for damaged lock	$63.25	Lock/key replacement for damaged lock
Repairs Painting, plastering	$3,550.00	28. Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay $3,550, which is two-thirds of the Saul Maintenance invoice.
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,536.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,536.17

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $5,536.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5450226-009) to Inspire Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 31 October 2025. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The five-year tenancy ended on 8 May 2025 following a 90-day notice. On 4 September 2025 the landlord filed their application with the Tribunal. The landlord provided a copy of an email from the tenant to the landlord on 4 September 2025. This was from the tenant’s email address that has been used as the address for service. I am satisfied that the tenant has received notice of the hearing as required under section 91A(2).
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs of a final inspection undertaken on 12 May 2025. From the photographs, it appeared that no cleaning had been done for a considerable amount of time, with a build-up of grime in the bathroom, a thick layer of fat in the oven. There had been no attempt to vacuum or wipe surfaces. Items of furniture, rubbish and debris were strewn and piled up throughout the property.
The landlord submitted invoices for cleaning $1,900, rubbish removal $520 and skip bin hire $994.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The exit report also refers to the following damage: a. Lining to shower over bath needs repair. Wall repairs needed. b. Holes and wear and tear in lounge c. Door coming off hinges in bedroom 1, holes in wall. d. Damage to window sash in Bedroom 3. e. Hallway repairs required.
The exit inspection photos also show areas of damage throughout the property: a. Damage to a wall at the end of the bath b. Two holes in the lounge walls c. A large hole and scrape/hole in Bedroom 1 d. Large areas of paint scraped off in Bedroom 1 e. Scraped areas in Bedroom 2 f. Damage to the door in Bedroom 3 g. Damaged window frame in Bedroom 3 h. Areas of damage to wall in hallway. i. Damaged lock on sliding door.
In some instances, there had been very poor attempts to patch and paint the areas.
The entry inspection photographs show a very well-presented property.
With the exception of Bedroom 2, the landlord has proved that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proved that she 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 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 damage was not covered by the landlord’s insurance. In any event, the excess was $1,000. That amount is usually payable per room.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $63.25 for replacing the handle and lock on the sliding door. That amount is ordered.
There were two other invoices: a. Two from Saul Maintenance: one was for half of the quote of $5,324.50, and the other was for the remaining half, plus some other repairs that are not being claimed. b. One from Ezibuild for $2,948.60 for repairs to one bedroom (plastering, painting, replacement plasterboard and repair to doorframe)
The explanation for the two invoices was that because of delays in getting all work completed, the landlord decided to get Ezibuild to repair the final bedroom.
The invoices for Saul Maintenance were based on a quote, which remained the same despite some of the work being carried out by another builder. The quote was for: a. Repair and paint end bath wall b. Repair door hinges to main door and wardrobe and repair holes in the walls, plaster and paint walls in Bedroom 1 c. Repair damage to window sash and repair door hinges in Bedroom 3 d. Repair plaster and paint walls in hall e. Repair and plaster and paint walls in lounge.
The total amount paid by the landlord for the repairs is the sum of $5,324.50 and $2,948.60, which is $8,273.10.
The landlord has not established that the tenant is liable for the $2,948.60 for the following reasons: a. It is not clear which bedroom the invoice from Ezibuild was for. If it was for bedroom 1 or 3, then it appears the landlord has paid twice for the same work. b. If the Ezibuild invoice was for bedroom 2, it is not clear that there was any damage. There appears to be some scraping in the photos, but it is not mentioned in the exit inspection report and appears to be wear and tear. It is certainly not almost $3,000 worth of damage.
I also note that the Ezibuild invoice for one bedroom is more than half of the Saul Maintenance invoice for two bedrooms, the hall, lounge and bathroom.
I have also taken into account betterment and depreciation.
I accept that if the tenant had not caused holes in the walls and other damage, the landlord would likely not have repainted at the end of the tenancy.
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. The tenancy lasted for five years, and so the landlord has had the benefit of the existing paint for that period.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay $3,550, which is two-thirds of the Saul Maintenance invoice.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339368 — net $5,536.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,900.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,514.92	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement for damaged lock	$63.25	Lock/key replacement for damaged lock
Repairs Painting, plastering	$3,550.00	28. Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay $3,550, which is two-thirds of the Saul Maintenance invoice.
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,536.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,536.17

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $5,536.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5450226-009) to Inspire Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 31 October 2025. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The five-year tenancy ended on 8 May 2025 following a 90-day notice. On 4 September 2025 the landlord filed their application with the Tribunal. The landlord provided a copy of an email from the tenant to the landlord on 4 September 2025. This was from the tenant’s email address that has been used as the address for service. I am satisfied that the tenant has received notice of the hearing as required under section 91A(2).
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs of a final inspection undertaken on 12 May 2025. From the photographs, it appeared that no cleaning had been done for a considerable amount of time, with a build-up of grime in the bathroom, a thick layer of fat in the oven. There had been no attempt to vacuum or wipe surfaces. Items of furniture, rubbish and debris were strewn and piled up throughout the property.
The landlord submitted invoices for cleaning $1,900, rubbish removal $520 and skip bin hire $994.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The exit report also refers to the following damage: a. Lining to shower over bath needs repair. Wall repairs needed. b. Holes and wear and tear in lounge c. Door coming off hinges in bedroom 1, holes in wall. d. Damage to window sash in Bedroom 3. e. Hallway repairs required.
The exit inspection photos also show areas of damage throughout the property: a. Damage to a wall at the end of the bath b. Two holes in the lounge walls c. A large hole and scrape/hole in Bedroom 1 d. Large areas of paint scraped off in Bedroom 1 e. Scraped areas in Bedroom 2 f. Damage to the door in Bedroom 3 g. Damaged window frame in Bedroom 3 h. Areas of damage to wall in hallway. i. Damaged lock on sliding door.
In some instances, there had been very poor attempts to patch and paint the areas.
The entry inspection photographs show a very well-presented property.
With the exception of Bedroom 2, the landlord has proved that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proved that she 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 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 damage was not covered by the landlord’s insurance. In any event, the excess was $1,000. That amount is usually payable per room.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $63.25 for replacing the handle and lock on the sliding door. That amount is ordered.
There were two other invoices: a. Two from Saul Maintenance: one was for half of the quote of $5,324.50, and the other was for the remaining half, plus some other repairs that are not being claimed. b. One from Ezibuild for $2,948.60 for repairs to one bedroom (plastering, painting, replacement plasterboard and repair to doorframe)
The explanation for the two invoices was that because of delays in getting all work completed, the landlord decided to get Ezibuild to repair the final bedroom.
The invoices for Saul Maintenance were based on a quote, which remained the same despite some of the work being carried out by another builder. The quote was for: a. Repair and paint end bath wall b. Repair door hinges to main door and wardrobe and repair holes in the walls, plaster and paint walls in Bedroom 1 c. Repair damage to window sash and repair door hinges in Bedroom 3 d. Repair plaster and paint walls in hall e. Repair and plaster and paint walls in lounge.
The total amount paid by the landlord for the repairs is the sum of $5,324.50 and $2,948.60, which is $8,273.10.
The landlord has not established that the tenant is liable for the $2,948.60 for the following reasons: a. It is not clear which bedroom the invoice from Ezibuild was for. If it was for bedroom 1 or 3, then it appears the landlord has paid twice for the same work. b. If the Ezibuild invoice was for bedroom 2, it is not clear that there was any damage. There appears to be some scraping in the photos, but it is not mentioned in the exit inspection report and appears to be wear and tear. It is certainly not almost $3,000 worth of damage.
I also note that the Ezibuild invoice for one bedroom is more than half of the Saul Maintenance invoice for two bedrooms, the hall, lounge and bathroom.
I have also taken into account betterment and depreciation.
I accept that if the tenant had not caused holes in the walls and other damage, the landlord would likely not have repainted at the end of the tenancy.
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. The tenancy lasted for five years, and so the landlord has had the benefit of the existing paint for that period.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay $3,550, which is two-thirds of the Saul Maintenance invoice.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339368 — Property damage at 59 Liverpool Street, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339368 — Property damage at 59 Liverpool Street, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.