What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342924 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Malcolm Forsyth

How much money was awarded in case 5342924?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,515.72 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13.52 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $588.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342924?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12877262-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342924 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Malcolm Forsyth

How much money was awarded in case 5342924?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,515.72 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13.52 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $588.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342924?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12877262-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20A Goldsmith Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342924 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

20A Goldsmith Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342924 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342924 — net $965.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 August 2025	$588.57	Rent arrears to 18 August 2025
Replacement carpet - depreciated	$1,515.72	Replacement carpet - depreciated
Replacement vanity - excess	$500.00	Replacement vanity - excess
Lock/key replacement	$13.52	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$965.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.81

Claims and awards for application 5342924 — net $965.81 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 18 August 2025

Amount: $588.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 18 August 2025

Replacement carpet - depreciated

Amount: $1,515.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement carpet - depreciated

Replacement vanity - excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement vanity - excess

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $13.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Painting — Other orders

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Malcolm Forsyth $965.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3342393-018) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Malcolm Forsyth immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
I was provided with evidence which showed the tenant’s son and daughter were helping the tenant move out and clean. I have been provided with an email from a daughter asking that any information be sent to her or her brother. I can confirm that the application, notice of hearing and supporting information were served on the daughter and the son as requested. I am satisfied the tenant was served using the substituted addresses.
I called both numbers for the son and daughter at the start of the hearing and neither answered the calls.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage. The 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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
There is a claim for a replacement vanity. The landlord provided photos proving the damage happened during this tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess which was $500 on the tenancy agreement. This is less than the quoted amount for a replacement vanity. I understand the insurance excess has increased but the tenant was not told about this. The claim is proved and allowed.
There is a claim for replacement carpet. I was provided with an invoice. I have seen photos and the landlord has proved the damage happened during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and I have not heard any evidence on behalf of the tenant. The photos taken at the end of the tenancy, after the commercial carpet cleaning, show the carpets in the lounge and the two bedrooms were very stained. The landlord said there was also an odour, although there was no independent evidence about this. I find it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the carpets and the tenant should pay compensation.
I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenant not breached his 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 - it was new carpet and eight years using the IR265 2020 tables. The tenancy lasted three and half years and I have allowed 55% of the total claimed.
There is a claim for painting the ceilings in the lounge and the two bedrooms. The ingoing photos are not great but it does look like there was no mould at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the ceilings in the three rooms were covered with dark spots, and it does look like mould.
The landlord’s submission is that the tenant did not properly ventilate the unit, wipe condensation, or clean the mould once established. However I am not persuaded I should allow the claim. While it was very tidy, the unit is an older style concrete unit, and these are prone to condensation. The kitchen, hall, and bathroom ceilings did not have the same problem, which suggests the tenant was ventilating the unit. It seems most likely to me the unit was prone to condensation and grew mould as a result. I find that painting the ceilings to cover mould after a three and a half year tenancy is a landlord maintenance issue. The claim for painting is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342924 — net $965.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 August 2025	$588.57	Rent arrears to 18 August 2025
Replacement carpet - depreciated	$1,515.72	Replacement carpet - depreciated
Replacement vanity - excess	$500.00	Replacement vanity - excess
Lock/key replacement	$13.52	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$965.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.81

Claims and awards for application 5342924 — net $965.81 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 18 August 2025

Amount: $588.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 18 August 2025

Replacement carpet - depreciated

Amount: $1,515.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement carpet - depreciated

Replacement vanity - excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement vanity - excess

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $13.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Painting — Other orders

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Malcolm Forsyth $965.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3342393-018) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Malcolm Forsyth immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
I was provided with evidence which showed the tenant’s son and daughter were helping the tenant move out and clean. I have been provided with an email from a daughter asking that any information be sent to her or her brother. I can confirm that the application, notice of hearing and supporting information were served on the daughter and the son as requested. I am satisfied the tenant was served using the substituted addresses.
I called both numbers for the son and daughter at the start of the hearing and neither answered the calls.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage. The 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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
There is a claim for a replacement vanity. The landlord provided photos proving the damage happened during this tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess which was $500 on the tenancy agreement. This is less than the quoted amount for a replacement vanity. I understand the insurance excess has increased but the tenant was not told about this. The claim is proved and allowed.
There is a claim for replacement carpet. I was provided with an invoice. I have seen photos and the landlord has proved the damage happened during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and I have not heard any evidence on behalf of the tenant. The photos taken at the end of the tenancy, after the commercial carpet cleaning, show the carpets in the lounge and the two bedrooms were very stained. The landlord said there was also an odour, although there was no independent evidence about this. I find it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the carpets and the tenant should pay compensation.
I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenant not breached his 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 - it was new carpet and eight years using the IR265 2020 tables. The tenancy lasted three and half years and I have allowed 55% of the total claimed.
There is a claim for painting the ceilings in the lounge and the two bedrooms. The ingoing photos are not great but it does look like there was no mould at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the ceilings in the three rooms were covered with dark spots, and it does look like mould.
The landlord’s submission is that the tenant did not properly ventilate the unit, wipe condensation, or clean the mould once established. However I am not persuaded I should allow the claim. While it was very tidy, the unit is an older style concrete unit, and these are prone to condensation. The kitchen, hall, and bathroom ceilings did not have the same problem, which suggests the tenant was ventilating the unit. It seems most likely to me the unit was prone to condensation and grew mould as a result. I find that painting the ceilings to cover mould after a three and a half year tenancy is a landlord maintenance issue. The claim for painting is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342924 — Property damage at 20A Goldsmith Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342924 — Property damage at 20A Goldsmith Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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.