Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5343180 — Property damage
Decided 19 Jun 2026 · Published 19 Jun 2026 · Application 5343180
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord's name and identifying details.
- Riria Daniels Sorensen must pay [The landlord/s] $8,822.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: ItemAmount to be paid to landlord Rent arrears as of 8 August 2025$919.20 Water rates at end of of tenancy$114.11 Cleaning $1,207.50. Skip bin hire (invoice 1)$425.01 Skip bin hire (invoice 2)$858.13 Lock replacement$211.60 Stove repair or replacement$100.00 Joinery repairs$4370.00. Window repairs$1366.70. Filing fee$28.00 Minus bond$-388.88 Total claim$9,211.37
- The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $388.88 to 3To1 Property Management Limited immediately.
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, the landlord seeks post tenancy costs including rent arrears.
BACKGROUND
- The tenancy commenced on 11 March 2022. At the time the two co-tenants were Riria Daniels an Harley Sorensen Daniels.
- The landlord terminated the tenancy by way of a 90 day termination notice, which required the tenant to vacate the premises by 3 June 2025.
- The tenant did not vacate the premises as required, so the landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order.
- On 16 July 2025, Adjudicator Manhire issued an order which granted possession of the premises to the landlord immediately, and also ordered the payment of water rates totalling $81.07. The Adjudicator noted that the tenant did not attend that video hearing, nor did she answer calls to attend the hearing.
- Possession returned to the landlord on 8 August 2026.
- On 10 September 2025 the landlord filed this application with the Tribunal against only Riria Daniels Sorensen.
- The matter came to a hearing before Adjudicator Lamdin. In his order of 31 March 2026 Mr Lamdin records that the landlord confirms the claims were as follows: a. Rent arrears, b. Water rates, c. Cleaning and pest control, d. Lock replacement, e. Rubbish removal, f. Curtain replacement, g. Gas stove repairs, h. Cupboard doors replacement, i. Window repairs, j. Filing fee and bond.
- I note that Mr Lamdin recorded that the landlord was not prepared for the hearing, as the evidence supporting the claim had not been uploaded. Mr Lamdin agreed that the hearing should be adjourned to allow the landlord to file that evidence.
- The hearing was rescheduled to myself on 18 June 2026. This was also a video hearing. Only the landlord attended the hearing today, there was no response from the tenant when I phoned her. I have no reason to believe that the tenant has not been notified of the hearing, so I have proceeded to hear the claim in her absence.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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.
- It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.
ANALYSIS
- The landlord has provided extensive photographs, which show that the premises were in a very poor state at the end of the tenancy. There was extensive rubbish, the premises were very dirty and the premises were damaged. The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs which show a clean and tidy dwelling. Claim 1 – Rent arrears
- The landlord states that the tenant was evicted by the bailiff when she did not return possession of the premises. When possession were returned on 8 August 2025, the rent arrears were $919.20.
- This claim has been established by way of the rent ledger and is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Water rates
- The landlord claims water rates of $195.18. This includes the amount previously ordered by the Tribunal in the order from Mr Manhire, which was $81.07.
- I am satisfied the claim for water rates has been established, however in order to avoid double ordering, I have deducted the amount of the previous order, so make an order for the remaining $114.11. Claim 3 Cleaning, rubbish and pest control
- The landlord claims cleaning costs of $1,207.50 from One-Stop Renovation which is the labour cost for the cleaning when the premises were returned. As I have indicated above, the premises were very dirty. There was extensive rubbish and tenant goods left on the premises. The claim for labour as claimed is entirely proportionate to the work that was needed. That claim is ordered in full.
- The landlord also claims the cost to hire three skip bins. Two invoices have been presented for $425.01 and $858.13. Again there was extensive rubbish and goods left on the premises, the tenant must be liable for the skip bin cost. Claim 4 – Lock replacement
- The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, keys were not returned, so two locks needed to be replaced $211.60
- Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
- I accept the tenant did not meet this obligation, so is liable for the lock replacement costs. Claim 5 – Curtain replacement
- The landlord states that when the tenancy started there were curtains, but at the end of the tenancy the curtains were missing and the rails had been ripped out. The landlord was unable to find the quotation or invoice for this work.
- I find this claim has not been established. The photographs show that there were some curtains returned, and in most windows, there were curtain tracks.
- Without the evidence supporting the cost incurred, I find this claim has not been proven, so is dismissed. Claim 6 – Gas stove replacement
- The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the gas stove had been ripped out from the bench.
- The landlord has not provided any invoice for this work, but there is a photograph which supports that the gas stove was ripped from the bench.
- It is reasonable to award a nominal sum for this damage, which I fix at $100.00. I cannot know what the repair or replacement cost was, but I accept that some cost was incurred by the landlord. Claim 7 – Joinery repairs
- The landlord seeks reimbursement for joinery repairs to the premises. The landlord states: a. The kitchen drawers were damaged b. The kitchen cupboard doors were damaged c. The entrance door was kicked and the door broken d. The laundry sliding door and shelves which had been ripped out. One door was missing
- The landlord refers to a quotation from Hua Joinery Limited of $4,370.00.
- Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
- 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.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- In this case I accept the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy, and is well beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability, I consider the more likely situation is that the damage was intentional. Therefore I find the tenant liable for the full costs claimed. Claim 8 – Window repairs
- The landlord has claimed for repairs to six broken windows at the premises. An estimate has been provided from Henderson Glass to support this claim, to the sum of $1,366.70. Again I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, it was not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not established this to be anything other than careless or intentional damage. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs.
NAME SUPPRESSION
- The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and because the landlord has been substantially successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.
FILING FEE
- The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.