What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343377?

The tribunal order states: Ariki Harper must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Grant &

How much money was awarded in case 5343377?

Bedroom 1: Remove stickers from wall…: $221.02 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $117.69 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2: Replace And Paint Door: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $801.96 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $184.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,947.78 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $93.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Lightshades: $40.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Shower Rose: $296.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $456.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $60.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343377?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343377?

The tribunal order states: Ariki Harper must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Grant &

How much money was awarded in case 5343377?

Bedroom 1: Remove stickers from wall…: $221.02 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $117.69 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2: Replace And Paint Door: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $801.96 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $184.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,947.78 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $93.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Lightshades: $40.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Shower Rose: $296.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $456.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $60.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343377?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 4, 47 School Road, Paihia, Paihia 0200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343377 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343377 — net $4,749.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: (final	$60.40	Water rates: (final
Bedroom 1: Remove stickers from wall and painting	$221.02	Bedroom 1: Remove stickers from wall and painting
Bedroom 2: Replace and paint door	$450.00	Bedroom 2: Replace and paint door
Bedroom 2: Hole repairs x 2 and painting	$117.69	Bedroom 2: Hole repairs x 2 and painting
Lounge and entry – wall damage compensation	$300.00	Lounge and entry – wall damage compensation
Pest control: Cockroaches and fleas	$184.65	Pest control: Cockroaches and fleas
Rubbish removal	$456.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$801.96	14. The claim is proven.
Replace curtains	$93.25	Replace curtains
Replace lightshades	$40.80	Replace lightshades
Replace shower rose	$296.13	Replace shower rose
Carpet replacement	$1,947.78	the claim for replacement of the carpet is proven.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	65. The landlord was largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$4,749.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,749.61

Order

Ariki Harper must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Grant & Noeline Cooper) $4,749.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $248.07 (3090770-031) to Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Grant & Noeline Cooper immediately.

Reasons

Background

On 23 January 2025 I made an order terminating the tenancy and awarding rent arrears, water rates, and the filing fee to the landlord. 1
On 23 September 2025 the landlord filed this application, seeking water rates, cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs, and replacement of chattels.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 2 February 2026. Ms Robinson represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was served on the tenant (as discussed in more detail below) and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. 2 Service
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy.
This means that the application and notice of hearing can only be served on the tenant: 3 a. Personally; or b. By posting to a contact address that the tenant has provided to the landlord within two months before the application; or c. By delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives; or d. By delivering it to a solicitor or other duly authorised agent appointed by the tenant; or e. By transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service.
In this instance the landlord relies on the last option for service, transmission to an email address given by the tenant.
There is no email address for service for the tenant specified in the tenancy agreement.
Ms Robinson said that she spoke with the tenant by phone in September 2025. In that conversation, Mr Harper said that the email address he had given to Ms Robinson was still current but that he did not have a phone so he could access 1 Mid North Real Estate Ltd v Harper [2025] NZTT 5068292 2 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 91A(2) RTA those emails. Mr Harper also agreed that Ms Robinson could send information to his father, Roger, who is also a tenant of Mid North Real Estate.
I am satisfied that this meets the definition of an email address for service, which is “an address given by the tenant [...] as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted”. 4 Water
Water rates up to September 2024 were awarded in the previous order.
This application seeks water use from then to the end of the tenancy, based on the final meter reading.
The amount of water use claimed is proven.
Mid North received some rent payments after the end of the tenancy, which they applied to water to reduce the final balanced owed to $60.40.
The claim is proven. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Tenants must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Robinson provided photographs taken at the final inspection.
The premises were not reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant left a substantial amount of rubbish behind, mostly in the carport.
The amounts claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal are proven and are fair and reasonable having regard to Mid North’s photographs. Pests
There was a cockroach infestation at the property at the end of the tenancy, and also fleas.
The extent of pests at a property can vary according to a wide range of factors, not always relating to things that are the tenant’s or landlord’s responsibility.
In this instance, there is evidence that the tenant failed to keep the premises clean and free from rubbish which would have contributed significantly to the problem. 4 Section 13AB RTA
In the circumstances I will hold the tenant liable for the cockroach treatment cost.
The proven costs are $184.65 (Mitre 10 invoices x 2, invoice from R Harper) Damage Introduction
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
The end of tenancy photographs show that there was damage to the premises, in particular damage to walls, a badly damaged door, and soiled carpet.
The landlord made an insurance claim for some of the damage. There is an excess of $1150 per “event”. The insurer prepared a detail assessment of the cost of repairs and replacement, which forms the basis of the landlord’s claim. Bedroom 1 – sticker removal, painting
Stickers were left on the wall in this room and there was children’s drawing / writing on the walls.
The claim seeks $467.23 per the insurance assessment.
The cost of $172.50 is fair and reasonable for removing the stickers.
Depreciation must apply to the re-painting cost of $242.60. There is no evidence that the walls were re-painted during this tenancy, so the paintwork is at least 7 years old. Significant depreciation must apply having regard to the age of the paintwork. I will apply depreciation of 80%. Replace and paint door
The photographs show that this door was badly damaged.
I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The claim seeks $399.71 to replace the door and door frame and $305.74 for painting.
The photographs provided to me do not evidence damage to the door claim.
The amounts claimed are excessive for the proven damage.
I will award $450.00. Bedroom 2 – repair holes, paint
The claim seeks the cost of repairing two holes in the walls and painting.
The landlord’s photographs prove the damage.
The following costs are proven: Hole to right of entry door: Hole repair$34.58 Painting (after depreciation)$18.20 Hole to right of wardrobe: Hole repair$34.58 Painting (after depreciation)$30.33 Replacement of curtains and lightshades
Curtains were missing and damaged at the end of the tenancy.
The claim seeks the cost of replacing three curtains (cost of curtains plus hanging).
The claim is proven.
I will apply depreciation of 50% to the costs claimed. Again, there is no evidence that the curtains were replaced during the tenancy.
Several lightshades were missing. The cost of replacing them is proven. These are long life items and I have not applied deprecation to the replacement cost claimed. Shower rose
The shower rose was missing. This damage is also noted in the previous order.
The cost of replacing the shower rose was $296.13. The tenant is liable for this cost. Lounge wall damage
The landlord’s photographs show damage to the walls in the lounge, comprising of numerous scrapes, dents and marks. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. There are no large holes.
The insurance assessment of the cost of this work seems to be based on removal and replacement of some of the walls. The evidence provided to me does not show that this scope of work is necessary.
The walls require some minor repairs and repainting.
Depreciation at 80% would apply to the repainting cost.
I will award compensation of $300.00 for this damage. Carpet
The claim seeks compensation for replacement of the carpet in the lounge and both bedrooms.
Mr Harper kept a dog in the property, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement. This is noted in the previous order. The flat is on the second floor, with no outside area.
Ms Robinson said that the carpet was heavily stained with dog urine and it smelled very bad.
The photographs show some of this staining.
Based on Ms Robinson’s oral evidence and the photographs, together with the fact that it is proven that the tenant kept a dog inside during the tenancy, the claim for replacement of the carpet is proven.
The claim seeks $3,450, which is the amount of the insurance excess for the three rooms where the carpet was replaced.
I agree that the landlord can recover no more than the insurance excess for each room, but calculation of the tenant’s liability is based on the new replacement cost of the carpet less depreciation.
There is no evidence that the carpet was replaced during this tenancy. This means that the carpet was at least seven years old at the end of the tenancy. It is a relatively inexpensive type of carpet.
I will apply depreciation of two-thirds to the new replacement cost.
The tenant’s liability is $ calculated as follows: RoomNew replacement cost After depreciation Lounge$3,217.14$1,072.38 Bedroom 1$1,167.20$389.07 Bedroom 2$1,459.00$486.33 Total:$1,947.78 Not proven
The claims for missing window trim in window in bathroom and damage to bath are not proven. I was not provided with any evidence of this damage. Filing fee, bond
The landlord was largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00.
The balance of the bond will be paid to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343377 — net $4,749.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: (final	$60.40	Water rates: (final
Bedroom 1: Remove stickers from wall and painting	$221.02	Bedroom 1: Remove stickers from wall and painting
Bedroom 2: Replace and paint door	$450.00	Bedroom 2: Replace and paint door
Bedroom 2: Hole repairs x 2 and painting	$117.69	Bedroom 2: Hole repairs x 2 and painting
Lounge and entry – wall damage compensation	$300.00	Lounge and entry – wall damage compensation
Pest control: Cockroaches and fleas	$184.65	Pest control: Cockroaches and fleas
Rubbish removal	$456.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$801.96	14. The claim is proven.
Replace curtains	$93.25	Replace curtains
Replace lightshades	$40.80	Replace lightshades
Replace shower rose	$296.13	Replace shower rose
Carpet replacement	$1,947.78	the claim for replacement of the carpet is proven.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	65. The landlord was largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$4,749.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,749.61

Order

Ariki Harper must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Grant & Noeline Cooper) $4,749.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $248.07 (3090770-031) to Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agent For Grant & Noeline Cooper immediately.

Reasons

Background

On 23 January 2025 I made an order terminating the tenancy and awarding rent arrears, water rates, and the filing fee to the landlord. 1
On 23 September 2025 the landlord filed this application, seeking water rates, cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs, and replacement of chattels.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 2 February 2026. Ms Robinson represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was served on the tenant (as discussed in more detail below) and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. 2 Service
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy.
This means that the application and notice of hearing can only be served on the tenant: 3 a. Personally; or b. By posting to a contact address that the tenant has provided to the landlord within two months before the application; or c. By delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives; or d. By delivering it to a solicitor or other duly authorised agent appointed by the tenant; or e. By transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service.
In this instance the landlord relies on the last option for service, transmission to an email address given by the tenant.
There is no email address for service for the tenant specified in the tenancy agreement.
Ms Robinson said that she spoke with the tenant by phone in September 2025. In that conversation, Mr Harper said that the email address he had given to Ms Robinson was still current but that he did not have a phone so he could access 1 Mid North Real Estate Ltd v Harper [2025] NZTT 5068292 2 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 91A(2) RTA those emails. Mr Harper also agreed that Ms Robinson could send information to his father, Roger, who is also a tenant of Mid North Real Estate.
I am satisfied that this meets the definition of an email address for service, which is “an address given by the tenant [...] as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted”. 4 Water
Water rates up to September 2024 were awarded in the previous order.
This application seeks water use from then to the end of the tenancy, based on the final meter reading.
The amount of water use claimed is proven.
Mid North received some rent payments after the end of the tenancy, which they applied to water to reduce the final balanced owed to $60.40.
The claim is proven. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Tenants must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Robinson provided photographs taken at the final inspection.
The premises were not reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant left a substantial amount of rubbish behind, mostly in the carport.
The amounts claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal are proven and are fair and reasonable having regard to Mid North’s photographs. Pests
There was a cockroach infestation at the property at the end of the tenancy, and also fleas.
The extent of pests at a property can vary according to a wide range of factors, not always relating to things that are the tenant’s or landlord’s responsibility.
In this instance, there is evidence that the tenant failed to keep the premises clean and free from rubbish which would have contributed significantly to the problem. 4 Section 13AB RTA
In the circumstances I will hold the tenant liable for the cockroach treatment cost.
The proven costs are $184.65 (Mitre 10 invoices x 2, invoice from R Harper) Damage Introduction
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
The end of tenancy photographs show that there was damage to the premises, in particular damage to walls, a badly damaged door, and soiled carpet.
The landlord made an insurance claim for some of the damage. There is an excess of $1150 per “event”. The insurer prepared a detail assessment of the cost of repairs and replacement, which forms the basis of the landlord’s claim. Bedroom 1 – sticker removal, painting
Stickers were left on the wall in this room and there was children’s drawing / writing on the walls.
The claim seeks $467.23 per the insurance assessment.
The cost of $172.50 is fair and reasonable for removing the stickers.
Depreciation must apply to the re-painting cost of $242.60. There is no evidence that the walls were re-painted during this tenancy, so the paintwork is at least 7 years old. Significant depreciation must apply having regard to the age of the paintwork. I will apply depreciation of 80%. Replace and paint door
The photographs show that this door was badly damaged.
I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The claim seeks $399.71 to replace the door and door frame and $305.74 for painting.
The photographs provided to me do not evidence damage to the door claim.
The amounts claimed are excessive for the proven damage.
I will award $450.00. Bedroom 2 – repair holes, paint
The claim seeks the cost of repairing two holes in the walls and painting.
The landlord’s photographs prove the damage.
The following costs are proven: Hole to right of entry door: Hole repair$34.58 Painting (after depreciation)$18.20 Hole to right of wardrobe: Hole repair$34.58 Painting (after depreciation)$30.33 Replacement of curtains and lightshades
Curtains were missing and damaged at the end of the tenancy.
The claim seeks the cost of replacing three curtains (cost of curtains plus hanging).
The claim is proven.
I will apply depreciation of 50% to the costs claimed. Again, there is no evidence that the curtains were replaced during the tenancy.
Several lightshades were missing. The cost of replacing them is proven. These are long life items and I have not applied deprecation to the replacement cost claimed. Shower rose
The shower rose was missing. This damage is also noted in the previous order.
The cost of replacing the shower rose was $296.13. The tenant is liable for this cost. Lounge wall damage
The landlord’s photographs show damage to the walls in the lounge, comprising of numerous scrapes, dents and marks. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. There are no large holes.
The insurance assessment of the cost of this work seems to be based on removal and replacement of some of the walls. The evidence provided to me does not show that this scope of work is necessary.
The walls require some minor repairs and repainting.
Depreciation at 80% would apply to the repainting cost.
I will award compensation of $300.00 for this damage. Carpet
The claim seeks compensation for replacement of the carpet in the lounge and both bedrooms.
Mr Harper kept a dog in the property, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement. This is noted in the previous order. The flat is on the second floor, with no outside area.
Ms Robinson said that the carpet was heavily stained with dog urine and it smelled very bad.
The photographs show some of this staining.
Based on Ms Robinson’s oral evidence and the photographs, together with the fact that it is proven that the tenant kept a dog inside during the tenancy, the claim for replacement of the carpet is proven.
The claim seeks $3,450, which is the amount of the insurance excess for the three rooms where the carpet was replaced.
I agree that the landlord can recover no more than the insurance excess for each room, but calculation of the tenant’s liability is based on the new replacement cost of the carpet less depreciation.
There is no evidence that the carpet was replaced during this tenancy. This means that the carpet was at least seven years old at the end of the tenancy. It is a relatively inexpensive type of carpet.
I will apply depreciation of two-thirds to the new replacement cost.
The tenant’s liability is $ calculated as follows: RoomNew replacement cost After depreciation Lounge$3,217.14$1,072.38 Bedroom 1$1,167.20$389.07 Bedroom 2$1,459.00$486.33 Total:$1,947.78 Not proven
The claims for missing window trim in window in bathroom and damage to bath are not proven. I was not provided with any evidence of this damage. Filing fee, bond
The landlord was largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00.
The balance of the bond will be paid to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343377 — Property damage at Flat 4, 47 School Road, Paihia, Paihia 0200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343377 — Property damage at Flat 4, 47 School Road, Paihia, Paihia 0200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions