What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346701 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 5346701?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,340.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,477.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,366.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12675392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346701 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 5346701?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,340.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,477.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,366.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12675392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33 Perth Street, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346701 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346701 — net $10,992.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2025	$5,340.00	Rent arrears to 14 September 2025
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,366.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: holes in walls and doors	$1,700.00	Repairs: holes in walls and doors
Replace furnishings: carpet	$3,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: vinyl	$1,477.50	Replace furnishings: vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,992.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,992.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Caitlin Goldsmith must pay [The landlord/s] $10,992.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 14 September 2025$5,340.00 Cleaning$600.00 Rubbish removal$1,366.50 Repairs: holes in walls and doors$1,700.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$3,000.00 Replace furnishings: vinyl$1,477.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$13,512.00 Bond$2,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,992.00

Reasons

The landlord 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence indicated that the tenant took what she wanted and left anything else behind and made no attempt to clen the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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.
In this case, the landlord was not insured and so the maximum amount for which the tenant is liable for careless damage is four weeks’ rent or $2,520.00.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpets in every room except one bedroom were soiled and damaged to such an extent that cleaning could not remove the marking. The landlord advised that included in the invoice for cleaning is an attempt by the landlord’s contractor to clean the carpets without success. Given the scope and extent of the damage, the Tribunal determines that it was intentional based on the reasoning in Guo v Korck referred to above. b. The vinyl in the laundry and kitchen/dining area was damaged by deeply ingrained staining or burn marks and drag or cut marks. The landlord gave evidence that the vinyl could not be cleaned or repaired. Given the nature and extent of the damage and the fact that this tenancy lasted only seven months, the damage was intentional. c. There was a very large hole in the wall of the laundry and damage on the wall where the washing machine was. The hole had been inexpertly repaired. d. There was a hole in the wall of bedroom 2. e. There were holes in the doors of bedroom 3, the pantry door and the wardrobe of the master bedroom. f. The top of the door in bedroom 2 had suffered damage. g. The nature, position and force required to inflict the wall and door damage indicate that it was caused by punching or kicking. It was intentional damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided quotations for the replacement of the carpet and vinyl and the repair of the wall and door damage. He advised that he had bought the property in October 2023 when the carpet and vinyl were new and the property had been just refurbished.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord’s evidence in support of the amounts being claimed was quotations. This means that the landlord has not proven the quantum of his loss, just provided limited evidence in support of his claim. It remains for the Tribunal to determine what is a fair amount to award the landlord for the damage he has suffered.
The Tribunal has determined a sum for the repairs to the walls and doors based on invoices it sees for similar work in this area. The Tribunal determines that the repair of the large hole in the laundry would cost $500.00 to repair and that the repairs for the other holes and door damage would cost $200.00 each.
In assessing the amount due in compensation to the landlord for the carpet and vinyl damage, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal has considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Inland Revenue Department’s Depreciation Rate Guide IR 265 indicates that carpets have an expected life of eight years. These carpets were two years old and so it is appropriate to deduct 25% from the amount claimed to reflect their depreciated value.
The landlord’s carpet quotation of $4,400.00 was for recarpeting all four bedrooms, although the landlord accepted that one bedroom did not require recarpeting. In assessing compensation, the Tribunal has accordingly reduced the amount of the quotation to $4,000.00 to reflect this.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346701 — net $10,992.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2025	$5,340.00	Rent arrears to 14 September 2025
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,366.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: holes in walls and doors	$1,700.00	Repairs: holes in walls and doors
Replace furnishings: carpet	$3,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: vinyl	$1,477.50	Replace furnishings: vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,992.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,992.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Caitlin Goldsmith must pay [The landlord/s] $10,992.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 14 September 2025$5,340.00 Cleaning$600.00 Rubbish removal$1,366.50 Repairs: holes in walls and doors$1,700.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$3,000.00 Replace furnishings: vinyl$1,477.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$13,512.00 Bond$2,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,992.00

Reasons

The landlord 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence indicated that the tenant took what she wanted and left anything else behind and made no attempt to clen the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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.
In this case, the landlord was not insured and so the maximum amount for which the tenant is liable for careless damage is four weeks’ rent or $2,520.00.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpets in every room except one bedroom were soiled and damaged to such an extent that cleaning could not remove the marking. The landlord advised that included in the invoice for cleaning is an attempt by the landlord’s contractor to clean the carpets without success. Given the scope and extent of the damage, the Tribunal determines that it was intentional based on the reasoning in Guo v Korck referred to above. b. The vinyl in the laundry and kitchen/dining area was damaged by deeply ingrained staining or burn marks and drag or cut marks. The landlord gave evidence that the vinyl could not be cleaned or repaired. Given the nature and extent of the damage and the fact that this tenancy lasted only seven months, the damage was intentional. c. There was a very large hole in the wall of the laundry and damage on the wall where the washing machine was. The hole had been inexpertly repaired. d. There was a hole in the wall of bedroom 2. e. There were holes in the doors of bedroom 3, the pantry door and the wardrobe of the master bedroom. f. The top of the door in bedroom 2 had suffered damage. g. The nature, position and force required to inflict the wall and door damage indicate that it was caused by punching or kicking. It was intentional damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided quotations for the replacement of the carpet and vinyl and the repair of the wall and door damage. He advised that he had bought the property in October 2023 when the carpet and vinyl were new and the property had been just refurbished.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord’s evidence in support of the amounts being claimed was quotations. This means that the landlord has not proven the quantum of his loss, just provided limited evidence in support of his claim. It remains for the Tribunal to determine what is a fair amount to award the landlord for the damage he has suffered.
The Tribunal has determined a sum for the repairs to the walls and doors based on invoices it sees for similar work in this area. The Tribunal determines that the repair of the large hole in the laundry would cost $500.00 to repair and that the repairs for the other holes and door damage would cost $200.00 each.
In assessing the amount due in compensation to the landlord for the carpet and vinyl damage, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal has considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Inland Revenue Department’s Depreciation Rate Guide IR 265 indicates that carpets have an expected life of eight years. These carpets were two years old and so it is appropriate to deduct 25% from the amount claimed to reflect their depreciated value.
The landlord’s carpet quotation of $4,400.00 was for recarpeting all four bedrooms, although the landlord accepted that one bedroom did not require recarpeting. In assessing compensation, the Tribunal has accordingly reduced the amount of the quotation to $4,000.00 to reflect this.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346701 — Rent arrears at 33 Perth Street, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346701 — Rent arrears at 33 Perth Street, Levin 5510

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